
Class 

Book 

Gopyright^N?_ 



COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT 




DR. GEORGE A. LOFTON. 




F. W. SMITH. 



WHY THE BAPTIST 

NAME. 



A DISCUSSION BETWEEN 



DR. GEORGE A. LOFTON (Baptist) 



AND 



F. W. SMITH (Christian). 



NASHVILLE, TENN.: 

McQUIDDY PRINTING COMPANY, 

1912. 



& 



[Copyright, 1912, by McQuiddy Printing Company.] v 



INTRODUCTION. 



The discussion contained in this volume originated in 
this way: Mr. J. F. Dew, assistant pastor of the Central 
Baptist Church, of this city, sent a copy of Dr. Lofton's 
tract, "Why the Baptist Name," to the Gospel Advocate, 
accompanied by a note requesting that a notice he given 
of it. Being office editor of the Gospel Advocate at that 
time, I submitted the tract to Brother F. W. Smith, re- 
questing him to give it such attention as he deemed proper. 
In response to the request, he wrote seven articles in review, 
which were published. After their appearance in print, 
Dr. Lofton and Brother Smith entered into a mutual agree- 
ment to publish a book of three hundred and twenty pages, 
containing the original tract, Smith's reviews, and Dr. 
Lofton's replies, the space to be divided equally between 
them. 

The arrangement differs from the ordinary published 
debate, which is due to the fact that Dr. Lofton replied to 
the articles as they appeared in the Advocate, Smith re- 
viewed these, then further replies were made by Dr. 
Lofton. When this was paged, it was found that Smith 
still lacked forty pages of filling his space, while Dr. Lofton 
lacked ten. But as it had been mutually agreed that Dr. 
Lofton should have the final rejoinder, Mr. Smith gave the 
doctor four of his pages and allowed him to fill four extra 
pages besides. 

The gentlemen engaged in the discussion are men of 
recognized ability and their bearing toward each other is 
dignified and courteous, and they have produced a very 
readable book, covering in a large measure the differences 
between the Baptists and disciples. J. W. Shepherd. 

Nashville, Tenn., August 10, 1912. 



AG * 
<gCU332391 



WHY THE BAPTIST NAME 



DR. LOFTON'S TRACT. 



The first man who baptized " was sent from God," and 
his baptism was " of heaven." His name was John, and he 
was called " the Baptist," because he baptized " in Jordan " 
(Mark 1: 9); and we find that he was a Baptist not only 
in practice, but in the fundamental principles of the Bap- 
tists. In order to his baptism, he demanded repentance for 
sin and faith in Christ, who should come after him (Acts 
19: 4); and also in order to baptism he demanded "fruits 
worthy of repentance" (Matt. 3: 8); or, as Josephus says 
(Ant. 18, 5, 2), John's baptism required that "the soul 
beforehand had already been purified through righteous- 
ness." This is sound Baptist doctrine: The sinner warned 
to "flee from the wrath to come;" repentance and faith in 
view of "the kingdom of heaven at hand;" the soul puri- 
fied already through righteousness, and beforehand, in or- 
der to baptism! It included "remission of sins" following 
repentance as symbolized by baptism; and it involved justi- 
fication and regeneration to all of John's disciples who be- 
lieved in the coming Redeemer. 

In this connection John established two great funda- 
mental Baptist principles: 

1. Believers' Baptism as Opposed to Infant Baptism. 

When the Pharisees and Sadducees came to John's bap- 
tism, he demanded of them repentance and fruits worthy 
thereof, which involved faith in the coming Messiah (Matt. 
3: 7-9); and he clearly implied that they could not receive 
his baptism upon the ground that they were "' the children 
of Abraham." Parental relationship which secured the in- 
fant rite under the circumcision or Abrahamic covenant 
had no place or analogy in the baptism of John; and hence- 



4 Why the Baptist Name. 

forth, as held by Christ and his apostles, repentance and 
faith, individually professed, were the only credentials by 
which to enter the covenant of grace and the kingdom of 
heaven, visibly symbolized by baptism. The gospel "ax" 
was laid by John at the root of the old Judaistic tree 
grounded in circumcision. The " new wine " of the gospel 
could not be put into the " old bottles " of circumcision by 
substituting baptism in its place. Abrahamic fatherhood 
could not put any Jew into the waters of John's baptism. 
So of any other than the Fatherhood of God; and thus the 
principle of believers' baptism, as opposed to infant bap- 
tism, was set up for the gospel dispensation. 

Baptism does not substitute circumcision under another 
or milder form of the Abrahamic covenant, which was only 
a carnal shadow of the covenant of grace, the covenant of 
grace being ratified only by the circumcision of the heart, 
without hands. The spiritual children of Abraham, subject 
to baptism, are all the children of God by faith in Christ, 
"according to promise;" and the children of believing par- 
ents, or of any other parents, have no relation to the cove- 
nant of grace until they ratify it by faith which is the cir- 
cumcision of the heart, to which, under the old covenant, 
the circumcision of the flesh pointed the Jewish race in the 
promised Redeemer — all by grace, through faith, and not 
by any work or ceremony of the law or of the gospel. Un- 
der the covenant of grace the provisional atonement of 
Christ covers the sin of the human race until the years of 
accountability, at or after which time the atonement is rat- 
ified by faith or rejected by unbelief; and if one die in in- 
fancy, or irresponsibility, he is saved by the blood of the 
covenant, irrespective of faith on his own part or on the 
part of parent, good or bad. Infancy is provisionally safe 
under the kingdom of God, but not saved into the kingdom 
of God unless it die. Hence, under the covenant of grace, 
infant baptism has no significance at all, unless it regener- 
ates, which is the arch heresy of Antichrist in all ages. 
Baptism is a retrospective gospel ordinance which symbol- 
izes the remission of sins, the regeneration of the heart, 
as a work already accomplished in the believer, and it points 
forward to nothing to be secured by covenant relationship 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 5 

or to be produced by its own efficacy in the salvation of the 
soul. "He that believeth and is baptized" (Mark 16: 15) 
is the only law on the subject ever enacted by Jesus Christ. 
Infant baptism is legalism — the arch heresy of pedobaptism 
and wholly antigospel. The pedobaptist theory that bap- 
tism comes in the place of circumcision is simply the trans- 
fer of the legal to the gospel dispensation, confounding the 
new and the old covenant; and if the logic of " infant bap- 
tism" could prevail, it reduces the freeborn church of 
Christ to the bondage and despotism of the old theocracy, 
governed by an ecclesiastical hierarchy and developed 
through organism and drill to whatever degree of faith and 
spirituality available under a legalistic system. This, un- 
der different forms, is the papal, the prelatical, and the 
presbyterial ideal of the church built upon " infant bap- 
tism " as substituting circumcision — involuntary submission 
to legalistic compulsion. This is not the evangelical ideal 
of the church built upon believers' baptism, the open door 
to regenerate organism and voluntary government, as set 
up by Christ and his apostles and anticipated by John the 
Baptist. The only " infant baptism " of John and Jesus is 
that of the newborn bale in Christ, the believer; and this 
baptism was not a legal and typical sprinkling in the place 
of circumcision, but a gospel dipping, an all-over washing 
of the body in water, symbolizing an all-over washing of the 
soul in blood — a burial and resurrection likeness — in token 
of remission and regeneration. The babe is never washed 
until he is born; so of the child born of God and baptized 
in water. John and Jesus were Baptists, not pedobaptists ; 
they were evangelical democrats, not legalistic theocrats or 
oligarchs. 

2. Believers' Baptism as Opposed to Baptismal Remission 
or Regeneration. 

Matthew (3: 11) says that John baptized "in water unto 
repentance " — that is, not in order to repentance, but on ac- 
count of repentance, and to so declare the fact by baptism. 
In other words, John's baptism implied previous repent- 
ance; and I suppose that not even the Campbellites would 
urge that baptism produced repentance, but that repentance 
must precede baptism; and they must agree here that John 



6 Why the Baptist Name. 

baptized his converts (eis metanoian) because of repent- 
ance, with reference to and not in order to repentance. 

Again, Mark (1: 4) and Luke (3: 3) assert that John 
preached " the baptism of repentance unto remission of 
sins" (eis aphesin hamartion). Now, if John's baptism, 
as above, presupposes repentance, then his baptism presup- 
poses " remission of sins " following repentance, unto and 
inseparable from remission, in the order of grammatical 
construction. Baptism can produce neither repentance nor 
remission of sins, but baptism does certify or declare both. 
If John's disciples brought forth fruit in proof of repent- 
ance — if they were " purified through righteousness " of 
soul " already " and " beforehand " — then their sins were 
remitted before baptism administered in view of remission, 
with reference to and not in order to remission. 

This is precisely the case (Acts 2: 38) when Peter said: 
" Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name 
of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins [eis aphesin 
hamartion}; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy 
Spirit." " Remission of sins " here follows " the name of 
Jesus Christ," the sole ground of faith, involving prior re- 
pentance, upon which remission was based, and so declared 
by baptism. As of the Jews at Pentecost, so of the Gentiles 
at Csesarea, to whom Peter said (Acts 10: 43): "To him 
bear all the prophets witness, that through his name every 
one that believeth on him shall receive remission of sins; " 
and while Peter spake these very " words whereby Cor- 
nelius and all his house should be saved" (Acts 11: 14), 
they believed unto the remission of sins, they were con- 
verted, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, they spake with 
new tongues, magnifying God, and, in token of the fact, they 
were afterwards baptized in water (Acts 10: 43-48). Notice 
in both instances (Acts 2: 38 and 10: 43) that "through 
the name of Jesus," believed upon, is the remission of sin 
(always implying repentance) ; and while baptism is not 
mentioned in Acts 10: 43 as in Acts 2: 38, yet we see the 
place and province of baptism the same in both cases — the 
declarative symbol of a preceding fact, testified to by the 
gift of the Holy Ghost which was bestowed, in the latter 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 7 

case, before baptism. Peter clearly agrees with the order 
of John the Baptist as to repentance and faith; and also as 
to baptism subsequent to and because of the remission of 
sins, and not " in order to " the fact thus declared. John 
and Peter were both Baptists and not Campbellites, who 
combine a rationalistic faith with a ritualistic baptism. 
They knew nothing of ritualism or rationalism, combined 
or apart. Jerusalem and Cassarea were perfectly parallel 
instances of salvation by grace — of sins remitted through 
repentance and faith and certified by baptism. More than 
this, Csesarea was a later and clearer enactment of Christ's 
law of baptism with reference to the remission of sins than 
that of Pentecost. 

Doctrinally, spiritually, practically, John was a thor- 
ough Baptist preacher. Pilled with the Holy Ghost, he 
fearlessly warned men to " flee from the wrath to come," 
proclaiming Christ and the kingdom of heaven at hand; 
and when the people came to his " baptism of repentance," 
he taught them benevolence and charity; the publicans, 
honesty in office; the soldiers, truth and contentment — 
" fruits meet for repentance " and " righteousness " of 
" soul " essential to faith. After his baptism of the Son 
of God, he pointed his followers to him (John 1: 29) and 
said, " Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the 
sin of the world;" and in this utterance he gave the key- 
note of the gospel for all ages, showing the way of the 
world's redemption through the blood atonement of the 
coming cross. Christ and his apostles took up the slogan 
of John the Baptist, " Repent, for the kingdom of heaven 
is at hand; " and the majestic work of Paul and other New 
Testament writers was the theological development of John's 
all-comprehensive text and proclamation : " Behold the 
Lamb of God," etc.; "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven 
is at hand." From this text and proclamation Baptists 
have never varied, and through all their history have 
maintained that salvation comes at faith in a crucified Re- 
deemer, based upon the Baptist maxim: "Blood before wa- 
ter, Christ before church, the Holy Spirit with the Word 
before all, in all, and through all." 

That John's baptism was immersion in the river Jordan 



8 Why the Baptist Name. 

is as certain as that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary, 
or that he was the Son of God, or that he atoned for sin, 
or that he rose from the dead, all of which has been con- 
troverted and perverted with the same skill of casuistry 
and sophistry as that by which baptism has been proven 
to be " sprinkling " or " pouring." The universal testi- 
mony of scholarship is that the primary meaning of oaptizo 
is " to dip," " to immerse," " to overwhelm," etc. ; and 
scores of the best scholars of every denomination have writ- 
ten that this is the meaning of the ordinance called " bap- 
tism " in the New Testament. The meaning of the word, 
the prepositions connected with it, the places of its ad- 
ministration, the conditions and circumstances which im- 
ply it and explain it, demonstrate that as certain as that 
John preached "m the wilderness" {en tee ereemo), he 
dipped his disciples "in water" {en hiidati), or "into the 
Jordan" (eis ton Jordaneen), or in the river Jordan (en 
to Jordanee potamo) (Matt. 3: 3-6; Mark 1: 9); and it is 
equally certain that Christ commanded, and that his apos- 
tles practiced, the ordinance by the same word and in the 
same way that " the Baptist " administered it. 

The name " Baptist " would never have been known if 
baptism had not been immersion. It had been "John the 
Rhantist," if sprinkling had been the performance. Bapt 
means dipt; the very sound corresponds to the sense. 
Baptist means dipper. 

John the Baptist was the prototype of all Baptists, in 
name, character, martyr spirit, in doctrine and practice. 
His baptized or Baptist disciples followed the baptized or 
Baptist Savior; and the first churches were baptized or 
Baptist churches, constituted with Christ as Head and Law- 
giver, but practicing John's baptism and holding to the 
fundamental principles upon which that baptism was ad- 
ministered: repentance toward God and faith in Christ. 
The first disciples and churches were not called " Baptist," 
but they were Baptist all the same. They were designated 
as "disciples," "saints," "churches," "churches of God," 
"churches of Christ," or of locality; and these designa- 
tions were scripturally given AFTER the name " Christian " 
originated at Antioch. The New Testament writers never 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 9 

applied the name " Christian " to disciples or church; and 
yet this name, "Christian," has become the characteristic 
and universal appellation of all that is true or claimed for 
Christ, as contradistinguished from the names of all other 
religions. All true disciples, churches, institutions, creeds, 
theologies, philosophies, and theories, involving the religion 
of Christ, are Christian. 

Why, then, not drop the name " Baptist," and take the 
name "Christian?" Baptists claim to be Christians, the 
followers of Christ and his teachings, in the widest and 
deepest significance of the term. We are Christian Bap- 
tists — Baptist Christians — the Baptist people and churches 
of Christ; but for several reasons we cannot give up the 
name of " Baptist." 

1. As we have seen, it is the name of our prototype, John 
the Baptist; and, as we have seen, he was a Baptist, and so 
called by reason of the ordinance he administered, which 
was " of heaven " and not " of men''' and himself " sent 
from God." Not only so, but, under God, he revealed the 
fundamental principles and practices which now distinguish 
Baptists from all other people; and we can no more give up 
the name than the principles of our Baptist prototype. 

2. The name "Baptist" (from the word "baptism") is 
symbolic of the death, burial, and resurrection ideal of sal- 
vation by grace. (1 Cor. 15: 1-4.) Jesus died for our sins, 
was buried, and rose again for our justification; and when 
he was baptized by John in Jordan (Matt. 3: 15), he thus 
fulfilled " all righteousness " in the symbolic representation 
of this great threefold fact in the work of our redemption. 
Not only so; but when we are baptized we symbolize, in Je- 
sus Christ, our death to sin, the burial of the old man from 
sight, and our resurrection to newness of life. (Rom. 6: 
3-5; Col. 2: 12.) The Baptists according to their name are 
a death, burial, and resurrection people, believing a death, 
burial, and resurrection gospel, and practicing a death, bur- 
ial, and resurrection baptism; and there are no other peo- 
ple who can properly administer baptism in accord with the 
death, burial, and resurrection significance of the ordi- 
nance. It would be impossible, therefore, for us to effect- 



10 Why the Baptist Name. 

ively sustain our historic and characteristic attitude toward 
this gospel ideal and give up the name of " Baptist." 

3. It is impossible, now, for us to surrender the name 
" Baptist," because that name properly distinguishes us 
from those who call themselves and their churches Chris- 
tian, and yet who preach and practice unchristian errors 
and heresies, as Baptists see them — even some who practice 
immersion as we do. The denial of the Holy Spirit in con- 
version through repentance and faith; the claim that the 
Spirit enters the penitent believer only in water; baptismal 
remission or regeneration; priestly mediation between the 
soul and the Mediator; infant baptism; sprinkling and pour- 
ing for baptism; transubstantiation ; apostasy from grace; 
papal, prelatical, and presbyterial forms of church govern- 
ment; union of church and state; ministerial or magisterial 
interference with conscience; Christian Science (so called) ; 
all forms of rationalistic Christianity which exclude the 
Deity of Christ, sin atonement, the final judgment and eter- 
nal hell — all this and more is called "Christian;" and the 
only denominational word which fully differentiates the re- 
ligious world along all these lines is " Baptist." The worst- 
abused word in history is the word " Christian," none of so 
uncertain sound; and while Baptists claim that sacred 
name, we should lose our historic and characteristic identity 
as a people, and sacrifice our specific mission for the truth 
of God and the good of the world, if we gave up our sym- 
bolic name for that of " Christian " alone. 

It may be asked: When and where did Baptists take their 
name? For centuries they were called Anabaptists, Anti- 
pedobaptists, and usually designated, in different countries 
and periods, by the name of some great leader, or body, 
holding Baptist principles or peculiarities; but it was not 
until the seventeenth century, in England, when, after cen- 
turies of struggle and blood, "the woman in the wilder- 
ness" came finally and fully into the open and took the 
general denominational name of Baptist as we now have it. 
Occasionally writers had referred to the Anabaptists as 
Baptistid, Taufer, Dooper, Doopsgezinden (dippers), and 
the like; but the name Baptist never became denomina- 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 11 

tionally crystallized until our people became comparatively 
free to assert their principles and to manifest their practice 
before the world, as in the days of John the Baptist, Christ, 
and the apostolic age. Even then the name grew upon 
them, as it did upon John the Baptist, by force of doctrine 
and practice which differentiated them from the heretical 
and the unbaptized; and from that day till this the differ- 
entiation has widened and deepened until the Baptist prin- 
ciple and practice have given religious liberty to the world 
and largely modified its theological errors and denomina- 
tional heresies. Baptist history would have been impossi- 
ble without the Baptist name; and Baptists cannot give up 
their name and meet the responsibility which the name 
implies — namely, to evangelize the world and set it free, 
in cooperation with all the good we find in others, accord- 
ing to gospel doctrine, order, and practice. 

Baptist principle and practice, symbolized by the Baptist 
name, signify the following peculiarities which, when taken 
as a whole, distinguish Baptists from all others at some 
given point of difference: The Deity and incarnation of 
Christ as the second Person of the Trinity; the sin atone- 
ment of Christ as a satisfaction to divine holiness; salva- 
tion by grace, justification through faith, alone; the Holy 
Spirit, with the "Word, essential to the conviction and con- 
version of the sinner and to the sanctification of the saint; 
immersion of the believer in water, the only baptism, and 
prerequisite to church membership and communion of the 
Lord's Supper; local church independency, with the bishops 
and the deacons, in the government of God's people ; Christ 
as the sole Head, the gospel as the sole rule of faith and 
practice, and the Holy Spirit as the sole Guide and Inter- 
preter of truth, in the administration of the kingdom; co- 
operation of churches, without federation, through general 
bodies for the promotion of missions, education, and benev- 
olence; absolute freedom of conscience; organic separation 
of church and state; all this and more. The word "Bap- 
tist " is the synonym of a people who hold to the " strict 
construction" of the gospel as the inspired word of God; 
and the name has become crystallized through a martyr 



12 Why the Baptist Name. 

spirit and a persistent orthodoxy, which, in the light of the 
Scriptures, reflect the character, the principles, and the 
practice of our ancient prototype, John the Baptist, and 
those like him in all ages. The Baptist name is denomina- 
tional by force of differentiation from all others, but it is 
not sectarian. It is symbolical of a whole-truth theology 
which comprehends the death, burial, and resurrection sig- 
nificance of salvation by grace through faith alone and cer- 
tified by baptism. 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 13 



I. 
" WHY JOHN WAS CALLED THE BAPTIST." 

Mr. Smith's First Review. 

The foregoing is an effort to justify the denominational 
name " Baptist," but it would have been more in harmony 
with logical sequence if the author had first established 
the scriptural right for the existence of the denomination 
itself. If it could be shown by the word of God that the 
name " Baptist " could be scripturally applied to a reli- 
gious organization, the Doctor would be put to the neces- 
sity of proving that his denomination is a lawful inheritor 
of that name. Children are not usually named before they 
are born, and for this reason, if for none other, he should 
first identify his denomination as scriptural in all essential 
features. Most certainly it would be out of order to apply 
a scriptural name to an unscriptural thing, which the au- 
thor has undoubtedly done in the present case, provided the 
word " Baptist " is scriptural. I am aware that it would 
be entailing upon Brother Lofton an impossibility to re- 
quire him to show that the Baptist Church is of divine 
origin, hence there is nothing left for me to do but deal 
with his effort on the name " Baptist " and such other mat- 
ters as he has introduced. 

First, then, it will be observed that Dr. Lofton assigns the 
reason why John was called " the Baptist " — viz., " because 
he baptized in Jordan (Mark 1:9)." Of course, the place 
in which John baptized had nothing to do with the name 
" Baptist," but the baptizing itself was the origin of it. Now, 
with this exception, the author has correctly stated the case, 
and in so doing he has unwittingly stripped himself of his 
denominational name. According to his own statement, it is 



14 Why the Baptist Name. 

most clearly seen that " Baptist " is an official and not a re- 
ligious name. John derived the name from exercising the 
office of a baptizer. He was sent of God to perform the of- 
fice from which came the name " Baptist," but his God-given 
name was "John." " But the angel said unto him, Fear 
not, Zacharias: because thy supplication is heard, and thy 
wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his 
name John." (Luke 1: 13.) 

It would, indeed, be interesting to see how those who do 
not baptize come to be Baptists. If John, as Dr. Lofton 
asserts, became a Baptist because he baptized, would not 
every one entitled to the name have to be a baptizer? If 
not, why not? Now, inasmuch as the "lay" members of 
Brother Lofton's church do not baptize, will he explain by 
what method they became Baptists, since the only person 
mentioned by the name "Baptist" in the Bible obtained 
the name " because he baptized? " If the Doctor will so 
elucidate this point as to make it clear to ordinary minds, 
he will confer a lasting favor on many who may be labor- 
ing under a misapprehension. 

But says the author: "We find that he was a Baptist 
not only in practice, but in the fundamental principles of 
the Baptists." The reader will, no doubt, be led to ask: 
How could John be a Baptist in anything but practice, and 
that of the one single act of baptizing, since Brother Lof- 
ton has told us he became a Baptist " because he baptized? " 
No matter what John taught on the subject of faith, re- 
pentance, or anything else, none of these things made him 
a Baptist. Therefore it follows most conclusively that even 
if the " lay " members of Doctor Lofton's church all taught 
exactly what John taught on faith, repentance, and every- 
thing else, this could not make them Baptists, since they 
did not make John a Baptist. If believing and practicing 
what John taught on the subject of faith and repentance 
made Baptists of Brother Lofton's " lay " members, how 
does it happen that believing and practicing the same 
things make Methodists, Presbyterians, and Lutherans? 
Surely Dr. Lofton will not say that these other denomina- 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 15 

tions do not believe and teach, the same thing on the sub- 
ject of faith and repentance that Baptists do. It avails 
nothing for the Doctor's cause to say that because John 
insisted on "repentance for sin and faith in Christ," that 
he must, therefore, have been the same as Baptists of this 
age, for the same logic would show John to have been a 
Methodist or a Presbyterian. I insist that these items are 
not peculiar to the Baptist Church, but are common to al- 
most the entire religious world, hence within themselves 
do not make Baptists. Neither does the doctrine of " ' re- 
mission of sins ' following repentance as symbolized by bap- 
tism" constitute a peculiarity of the Baptist Church, for 
Methodists, Presbyterians, and others teach the same thing. 
It is true that these denominations differ from the Baptists 
on the action, but not on the design of baptism. They put 
remission of sins before baptism; hence the fact that Bap- 
tists teach this does not make them Baptists. 

The Doctor has drifted from the main subject and intro- 
duced another. He asserts that those whom John baptized 
received remission of sins before they were baptized. Now 
this is simply an assertion without one word of Bible proof 
to sustain it. It is true that he brings forward a witness, 
but who is it? Josephus, an infidel Jewish historian, and 
even he does not sustain the author. He quotes Josephus 
(Ant. 18, 5, 2) as follows: "The soul beforehand had al- 
ready been purified through righteousness." I wonder why 
Brother Lofton did not think of this passage : " Seeing ye 
have purified your souls in your obedience to the truth unto 
unfeigned love of the brethren, love one another from the 
heart fervently." (1 Pet. 1: 22.) Here it is distinctly 
stated that the soul is purified through obedience, and the 
apostle Paul informs us what sinners must obey in order to 
be made free from sin: " But thanks be to God, that, where- 
as ye were servants [Greek, " bond servants "] of sin, ye be- 
came obedient from the heart to that form of teaching 
whereunto ye were delivered; and being made free from 
sin, ye became servants of righteousness." (Rom. 6: 17, 
18.) This passage clearly teaches that the disciples in 



16 Why the Baptist Name. 

Rome were not freed from sin or received remission of 
their past sins until they obeyed from the heart "that 
form of teaching," and the learned MacKnight, a Presbyte- 
rian commentator, says: "The apostle represents the gos- 
pel doctrine as a mold, into which the Romans were put 
by their baptism, in order to their being fashioned anew." 
("Commentary on the Epistles.") The correctness of this 
exegesis is most clearly shown from the first part of the 
chapter (Rom. 6), which says: "We were buried therefore 
with him through baptism into death: that like as Christ 
was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, 
so we also might walk in newness of life." (Verse 4.) 

But back to Josephus. That witness was not quoted cor- 
rectly by Brother Lofton, for he says: " Supposing still 
that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by right> 
eousness." So it transpires that the highest testimony the 
Doctor has offered resolves itself into a mere supposition, 
with not so much as a syllable of divine testimony upon 
which to base it. The passage reads: "John did baptize 
in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repent- 
ance for the remission of sins." (Mark 1: 4.) Now 
the whole controversy hinges on the meaning of the prep- 
osition " for " in this sentence. I affirm that, according to 
the natural, grammatical, and unstrained construction of 
the passage, " for " can have but one meaning here, and 
that is " in order to " or " with the view of receiving " re- 
mission of sins. But the Baptists as a denomination, as 
well as many others, have two ways of dealing with this 
passage in an effort to show that baptism was not adminis- 
tered in order that those baptized might receive the for- 
giveness of their sins. I shall assume that since Brother 
Lofton has introduced Josephus, he will not object to my 
bringing forward the lamented J. W. McGarvey on the mat- 
ter of grammatical construction. Hence I beg leave to 
submit the following: 

But these, who have been taught to deny the divinely 
established connection between baptism and remission of 
sins, have resorted to various ingenious devices in order to 
put a different meaning on passages like this. One of these 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 17 

devices is the assumption that the preposition " for " con- 
nects " remission," not with the term " baptism," but with 
the term " repentance ; " and that repentance, not baptism, 
is declared to be for the remission of sins. According to 
this assumption, " repentance for the remission of sins " is 
an adjunct of " baptism," showing what baptism John 
preached — a baptism preceded by repentance for the remis- 
sion of sins. But this is a forced construction of the sen- 
tence, and it bears all the marks of having been invented 
for a purpose. By the natural and grammatical construc- 
tion, " of repentance " must be regarded as an adjunct of 
" baptism," showing that it is a baptism of repentance, 
while " for the remission of sins " declares the object of 
this baptism. We have examples of the same construction, 
in both English and Greek, in the following places : " Christ 
is the end of the law for righteousness." (Rom. 10: 4.) 
" He [the civil ruler] is the minister of God to thee for 
good." (Rom. 13: 4.) In each of these examples the prep- 
osition " for " connects its object with the leading substan- 
tive of the sentence, while the subordinate substantive 
with its preposition " of " constitutes an adjunct of the prin- 
cipal subject. So, in the instance before us, " for " connects 
" baptism " with " remission of sins," while " of repent- 
ance " is an adjunct of " baptism." 

Another device has been to assign to "for" the meaning 
" on account of," thus making the passage mean that John 
preached the baptism of repentance on account of the re- 
mission of sins which had already taken place. But this is 
assigning to the Greek preposition (eis) rendered "for "a 
meaning which it never bears, and it makes John announce 
as a reason for baptism that which could not be a reason 
for it. How could the fact that a man's sins had already 
been forgiven be a reason why he should be baptized? 
Even if forgiveness had preceded baptism, baptism would 
still have an object of its own, as it has in the system even 
of those who accept this interpretation, and for this object 
it would be administered. The course which candor and 
fair dealing with the word of God require is to accept the 
meaning which the inspired writer has left on the very sur- 
face of the passage, and not seek for forced interpretations 
in order to save a theory which must be false unless it can 
find better support than this. (" Commentary on Mark," 
chapter 1, verse 4.) 

To show that those who contend for the Bible doctrine 
of baptism for the remission of sins are not all identified 
with the disciples, or those who prefer no party name, I 
herewith give some testimony from some very eminent Bap- 
tists: 



18 Why the Baptist Name. 

" Baptism of repentance for the [unto] remission of sins." 
This might be paraphrased : "Proclaiming the duty of all 
people to repent, and on the ground of this repentance to 
be baptized, and all with a view to the forgiveness of sins. 
. . . " For remission of sins " — that is, unto, in order 
to, with a view to obtaining remission or " release from," 
" forgiveness." The baptism of repentance thus grammat- 
ically looked forward to the forgiveness, and was not based 
upon it. If the pledge given in baptism was truly kept, 
forgiveness would follow at the coming of the Messiah, 
when this change of mind would have prepared the subject 
of it for faith in Christ." (George R. Bliss, Professor of 
Biblical Literature and Theology in Crozier Theological 
Seminary, Chester, Pa., " Commentary on Luke," chapter 
3, verse 3.) 

This eminent Baptist as clearly and strongly emphasizes 
baptism in order to remission of sins as do those whom Dr. 
Lofton calls " Campbellites." But I have more in store for 
the good brother: 

That baptism, as commanded and administered by John, 
was not an emblem of remission previously granted, but 
(with repentance) a condition of remission promised, is 
clear, not only from the use of eis, but from John's own 
words to certain hypocrites, Pharisees and Sadducees, 
"Who hath warned you to flee from the coming wrath?" 
and also from our Lord's words: "But the Pharisees and 
lawyers rejected the counsel of God concerning themselves, 
not being baptized of him." And in refusing baptism they 
refused everything. (James W. Willmarth, Member of the 
Board of the American Baptist Publication Society, and 
Chairman of its Committee of Publication, " Baptism and 
Remission," in Baptist Quarterly, Philadelphia, July, 1877.) 

These quotations show that there are at least some Bap- 
tists who do not believe that Josephus, Dr. Lofton's chief wit- 
ness, uttered the truth in saying that John's converts re- 
ceived remission of sins before baptism. They do not be- 
lieve the Doctor's theory that baptism was an "emblem" 
or "symbol" of remission of sins. Baptism may be an 
emblem or symbol of a burial and resurrection, but not of 
remission of sins — a thing which takes place in the mind 
of God. There must be some prominent element of resem- 
blance or likeness between a symbol and that which it 
symbolizes. Will Brother Lofton be kind enough to point 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 19 

out the resemblance between baptism and the remission of 
sins? Besides all this, where in all of the New Testament 
has any inspired man let fall from lip or pen one syllable 
that even remotely resembles such an idea? 



Dr. Lofton's First Reply. 

I wish to affirm that in using the name " Campbellite " 
I mean no offense whatever, but only to designate a well- 
known denomination that takes its teaching primarily 
from Alexander Campbell, who was the father and founder 
of the people long called " Campbellites," characterized as 
they are by all the peculiarities of their recent progenitor, 
and despite the fiction by which they seek to deny their 
patronymic and paternity. They call us " Baptists " and 
stigmatize our name as unscriptural and sectarian; but 
while they repudiate their name, we cherish and honor 

OUrS, AND ARE NOT ASHAMED OF IT. 

The assumption of my opponent is that, granting the 
name " Baptist " as scriptural and applicable to a religious 
denomination, there is no proof that the Baptist organi- 
zation is scriptural and, therefore, the inheritor of the 
Baptist name; but, in the course of this discussion, I will 
show that the Baptist denomination was fundamentally 
developed, and so called by reason of the practice and 
teachings of John the Baptist, as adopted by Christ and 
his apostles and formulated in the constitution of the gos- 
pel church. 

In my tract I not only said that John was called " the 
Baptist" because he baptized, but that he was a Baptist, 
and so called because of the fundamental doctrines and 
principles which his baptism demanded. Brother Smith as- 
sumes that " Baptist " was simply John's " official " name, 
and not a " religious " name; and that no matter what 
John taught, it had no connection with his practice or bap- 
tism in making him a Baptist. His " official " name was 
given him by the gospel, and is, therefore, both a scrip- 



20 Why the Baptist Name. 

tubal and religious name — as much so as the name 
"John." In the very first mention of his ministry he is 
called "John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of 
Judea, and saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is 
at hand," before any mention of his baptism. (Matt. 3: 1, 2.) 
John himself was "sent from God; " his baptism was "of 
heaven " and not " of men," and therefore a divine insti- 
tution, administered by a divinely appointed man, having 
a scriptural title, " the Baptist," which signified and au- 
thorized that administration. Alexander Campbell himself 
called John " the first Baptist preacher." 

Hence the word " Baptist " was not simply incidental to 
John's administration of baptism. This title involved 
John's representation and propagandism of the doctrines 
and principles comprehended by his baptism — namely, re- 
pentance and faith in view of Christ and the kingdom of 
heaven at hand, with the remission of sins symbolized by 
that baptism which gave visible entrance to that kingdom. 
John's teaching and practice were inseparable; and his 
title, as " the Baptist," was inseparable from his propa- 
gandism of what he taught and practiced. Men's names 
usually attach to their teaching and practice, as seen in 
Lutheranism, Calvinism, Campbellism, and the like; but 
this was not true of John, whose divine title, " the Bap- 
tist," which symbolized his divine teaching and practice, 
adhered to his propagandism, and so adheres to it unto 
this day. The word " Baptist " is as much of God as the 
word " baptism," which symbolizes and signifies its coor- 
dinate teachings, and which originates the name " Bap- 
tist," the title of its first great administrator and preacher 
and that of his followers who teach and practice still 
after the doctrine and manner of John. 

My opponent asks the question : " If John became a 
Baptist because he baptized, would not every one entitled 
to that name have to be a baptizer? " "We are Baptists 
because we follow the principles and practice of John the 
Baptist, just as Brother Smith is a Campbellite by follow- 
ing the principles and practice of Alexander Campbell. 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 21 

He did not have to become an Alexander Campbell to be- 
come a Campbellite. 

Another absurd query of my opponent is this: " If be- 
lieving and practicing what John taught on the subject 
of repentance and faith make Baptists, how does it hap- 
pen that believing and practicing the same things make 
Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, etc.?" This was 
Baptist belief and practice before there were any Meth- 
odists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, etc. Besides this, while 
believers' baptism is an adjunct of pedobaptism, its funda- 
mental peculiarity is infant baptism; and if the logic of 
infant baptism could prevail, there would be no believers' 
baptism. Repentance, faith, and believers' baptism are not 
the property of pedobaptism where infant baptism can 
serve its purpose. Believers' baptism is only an inci- 
dental peculiarity of pedobaptism. 

My position that those whom John baptized received 
remission of sins before baptism, my opponent not only 
denies, but assails, first of all, the testimony of Josephus, 
who says of John's baptism (Ant. 18, 5, 2) : "Baptism ap- 
pears acceptable to God, not in order that those who were 
baptized might get free from certain sins, but in order that 
the body might be sanctified, because the soul beforehand 
had already been purified through righteousness." (Trans- 
lation of Dr. Strong.) Josephus was contemporary with 
John the Baptist, a disinterested and competent witness, 
and he expressed the then prevalent view of John's baptism 
among the Jews; and he is in perfect harmony with John 
the Baptist himself, who demanded that, in order to his 
baptism, men should repent, confess their sins, and bring 
forth fruit worthy of repentance, through faith in Christ 
to come and in view of the kingdom of heaven at hand. 
Change of mind and reformation of life involved, as 
Josephus puts it, the soul purified through righteousness 
already and beforehand in relation to baptism, which, as the 
outward purification of the body, was the symbol of the 
inward purification of the soul. Josephus clearly expresses 
the design of John's baptism; and this is precisely Baptist 
position. Take the old translation of Josephus, * Suppos- 



22 Why the Baptist Name. 

ing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand 
by righteousness," it was John's supposition, or under- 
standing, that the soul was so purified before he baptized 
the penitent believer. He could not know the fact. 

Against John the Baptist and Josephus my opponent 
cites 1 Pet. 1: 22: "Seeing ye have purified your souls in 
your obedience to the truth unto unfeigned love of the 
brethren; " also Rom. 6: 17, 18: "But thanks be to God, 
that, whereas ye were the servants of sin, ye became obe- 
dient from the heart to that form of teaching whereunto 
ye were delivered; and being made free from sin, ye be- 
came servants of righteousness," together with an inter- 
pretation of the latter passage of MacKnight to fit the 
Campbellite theory — namely, that the soul is purified only 
through obedience, and, first of all, through obedience in 
baptism. Peter evidently, by the context, refers to "faith 
and hope in God " through Christ as the heart obedience 
of the elect " to the truth unto unfeigned love of the breth- 
ren " through which they had purified their souls. It does 
not refer to outward or physical obedience; and the obe- 
dience of Rom. 6: 17 is likewise a heart obedience to the 
truth, to the gospel of grace as opposed to Judaism — that 
pattern, or tupon, of teaching whereunto God had deliv- 
ered these Roman sinners — through faith in Christ, his 
death, burial, and resurrection, as symbolized and set forth 
in baptism. So, for substance (without allusion to bap- 
tism), Alford, Lange, DeWette, Haldane, and many of the 
best commentators on Romans. 

My opponent assumes, according to MacKnight, that these 
Roman sinners were put into this doctrinal mold by bap- 
tism itself in order to being " fashioned anew," " made free 
from sin," etc.; and he cites in proof Rom. 6: 4: " We were 
buried therefore with him through baptism into death: that 
like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of 
the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life." 1 
will add the next sentence (verse 5): "For if we have 
become united with him in the likeness of his death, we 
shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection." Having 
discussed the great doctrine of salvation by grace, justi- 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 23 

fication by faith, the apostle proceeds to combat the Anti- 
nomian presumption that, because saved by grace and justi- 
fied by faith, we might go on in sin that grace may abound; 
but he exposes the heresy by the symbolism of our baptism 
which represents us as dead to sin and alive to God through 
Christ. Baptism is the " likeness," or symbol, of Christ's 
death, burial, and resurrection, and of our union, through 
faith, with him in that death, burial, and resurrection; and 
baptism is the only " likeness " on earth of death, burial, 
and resurrection. " The just shall live by faith." We die 
to sin through the death of Christ, and so live anew 
through his resurrection; but this spiritual product is the 
effect of faith, and not of baptism, which only displays the 
fact by its " likeness " and teaching. In this spiritual 
change the " old man " is said to be crucified and buried 
" that the body of sin might be done away." But if the 
change takes place in baptism, you bury the " old man " to 
kill him, contrary to the natural order of Christ's death, 
burial, and resurrection; and contrary to the natural or- 
der of our spiritual death, burial, and resurrection in and 
through him by faith, of which baptism is the perfect 
" likeness," or symbol, and certificate. Baptism symbolizes 
and declares death, burial, and resurrection, both physical 
and spiritual; but as we die in order to burial and resur- 
rection, we never bury in order to death and resurrection, 
which would utterly destroy the baptismal " likeness " and 
analogy. 

We have a similar instance of symbolism in the Lord's 
Supper. Christ said: "Take, eat; this is my body;" 
"Drink; . . . this is my blood" (Matt. 26: 26, 28); 
and he said beforehand : " Except ye eat the flesh of the 
Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you;" 
but he was employing a symbolism to represent, through 
faith, not only our union with Christ, but the continuance 
of that spiritual life already symbolized as begun in bap- 
tism. Baptism and the Lord's Supper, aside from being 
twin memorials, are the twin symbols of Christ's sufferings 
and death, on the one hand, and of his death, burial, and 
resurrection on the other; and they both so teach our spir- 



24 Why the Baptist Name. 

itual participation, through faith, in the benefits of his 
suffering and death, burial and resurrection. We do not 
literally dip to spiritually live, nor literally eat to spiritual- 
ly grow; but through these ordinances we symbolize and de- 
clare the great truths they teach, and so spiritually re- 
ceive the effect of their teaching. Besides our union with 
Christ and with one another, they respectively symbolize 
birth and growth, regeneration and sanctification, but they 
produce neither. With or without faith, they have no sac- 
ramental efficacy; and while they are living pictures and 
object lessons, their observance and obligation belong only 
and alike to Christians, and never to unconverted people. 

The difficulty with my ritualistic friends is that, in their 
interpretation of scripture language, they literalize sym- 
bolism and confound figures with the truths and facts these 
figures signify. According to Dr. Strong, that greatest of 
theologians and philosophers (" Syst. Theol.," page 531): 
"Passages like Matt. 3: 11; Mark 1: 4; 16: 16; John 3: 5; 
Acts 2: 38; 22: 16; Eph. 5: 26; Titus 3: 5; and Heb. 10: 22, 
23, are to be explained as particular instances of the general 
fact that, in scriptural language, a single part of a com- 
plex action, and even that part of it which is most obvious 
to the senses, is often mentioned for the whole of it, and 
thus, in this case, the whole of the solemn transaction is 
designated by the external symbol. In other words, the 
entire change, internal and external, spiritual and ritual, 
is referred to in language belonging strictly only to the 
outward aspect of it. So the other ordinance is referred to 
by simply naming the visible "breaking of bread; " and 
the whole transaction of the ordination of ministers is 
termed the "imposition of hands." (Cf. Acts 2: 42; 1 Tim. 
4: 14.) The sign is often put for the thing signified. 

My opponent cites his own witness, McGarvey, in his 
interpretation of Mark 1: 4: "John did baptize in the 
wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance unto re- 
mission of sins." He assumes that the expression, " of 
repentance" is the adjunct of " baptism" and that " re- 
mission of sins " is the object of baptism and not of re- 
pentance, and must be rendered " baptism for the remis- 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 25 

sion of sins." This means that remission of sins is by 
baptism alone, and independent of repentance, which, he 
says, is only an adjunct of baptism. In support of this in- 
terpretation my opponent cites Drs. Bliss and Willmarth, 
Baptists — all of whom I shall answer at once. 

In the nature of the case, and in the use of symbolic 
language employed, the above interpretation is impossi- 
ble. John the Baptist required repentance and confession 
of sin, also fruits worthy of repentance involving faith in 
Christ to come, which implied not only outward reforma- 
tion of life, but inward righteousness of the soul purified, 
as shown by Josephus, all before baptism. This being so, 
John's baptism presupposed repentance, and must have 
been administered on account of (eis) repentance (Matt. 
3: 11); and if baptism presupposed repentance, it presup- 
posed remission of sins secured by repentance, of which 
baptism was the declarative sign, or symbol, because of 
repentance and remission of sins. See Matt. 12: 41 on this 
use of eis. " Baptism of repentance " means a baptism 
associated with and subordinate to repentance, and hence 
in the expression, " baptism of repentance unto [eis] re- 
mission of sins," repentance is the ground of remission of 
which baptism, the accompaniment of repentance, is the 
sign. Otherwise, according to Matt. 3: 11 and Mark 1: 4, 
baptism is in order to both repentance and remission of 
sins, which is absurd. 

The Scriptures show that repentance and faith (Mark 1: 
15; Luke 24: 47; Acts 3: 19; 10: 43) are the sole con- 
dition of remission of sins, with no reference to baptism at 
all. If John baptized (eis) with reference to repentance 
(Matt. 3: 11), and repentance is a condition of remission 
(Luke 24: 47), then baptism can only symbolize and de- 
clare what repentance secures (in connection with faith), 
remission of sins. The interpretation of Dr. McGarvey 
(Mark 1: 4) makes baptism the sole ground of remission, 
repentance being only the adjunct of baptism. Aside from 
the fact that baptism is not a condition of remission at all, 
he cuts out repentance, the only ground here mentioned. 

All this applies to Bliss and Willmarth, who are but two 



26 Why the Baptist Name. 

among the millions of Baptists, with all their scholarship 
and centuries of history, who teach to the contrary, and 
who repudiate this heresy. I think I have proven to the 
reverse of Dr. Bliss — namely, that " forgiveness," which is 
grounded in repentance, was not based upon baptism; and 
that this forgiveness was immediate upon repentance, and 
not postponed to the coming of Christ upon the ground 
of " keeping the pledge in baptism." I am certain, against 
Willmarth, that baptism is the symbol of remission, as it 
represents the cleansing from sin, but does not produce it, 
just as it is also the symbol of birth, or death, burial, and 
resurrection, a declarative sign of all these things, but not 
the ground of their production. I grant with Willmarth 
that the hypocritical Pharisees and lawyers rejected the 
counsel of God concerning themselves by not being baptized 
of John; but I deny that in simply refusing baptism they 
refused everything. The ground of their rejection was 
their refusal to repent and bring forth fruits worthy of 
repentance which John demanded in order to his baptism 
— in claiming baptism upon the ground that they were the 
children of Abraham, which the Baptist repudiated. John 
was neither ritualist nor federalist. 

John's baptism was Christian baptism. It was a bap- 
tism administered upon faith in the Messiah at hand, as 
well as a baptism of repentance for sin. The only differ- 
ence between John's and Christ's baptism is that John 
baptized with reference to Christ about to come and Christ's 
disciples baptized with reference to Christ already come. 
The rebaptism of Acts 19: 1-5 was that of persons misled 
as to the nature of John's doctrine and baptism, and had 
submitted to a baptism which seems to have had no refer- 
ence to Christ or faith in him at all, much less any knowl- 
edge of the Holy Spirit. This was neither in accord with 
John's doctrine or baptism which pointed to Christ, and 
also to the baptism of the Holy Spirit which should take 
place through Christ. Much of John's ministry and bap- 
tism occurred after Christ had come and was himself bap- 
tized and his ministry begun. John preached the first gos- 
pel sermon from the text: " Behold the Lamb of God, which 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 27 

taketh away the sin of the world." And he continued to 
preach and baptize with reference to Christ already come, 
just as he had so preached and baptized with reference 
to Christ about to come. He simply " decreased " as Christ 
"increased;" and his ministry and baptism were gradually 
and finally absorbed by the ministry and baptism of Christ. 
THEY WERE ONE AND THE SAME, except the baptism 
of the Holy Spirit, which never fully came until the day of 
Pentecost. 



Mr. Smith's Second Review. 

Brother Lofton's apology for calling Christians " Camp- 
bellites " is based upon nothing more than an absolute as- 
sumption — viz., " a well-known denomination that takes its 
teaching primarily from Alexander Campbell, who was the 
father and founder of the people long called ' Campbell- 
ites.' " He should have made at least some effort to prove 
this sweeping assertion if he expects the candid readers 
of this book to believe that his " apology " is well founded. 
Of course I cannot prevent Dr. Lofton nor any one else 
from calling me a " Campbellite," but I can refuse to ac- 
knowledge and wear this or any other sectarian or denomi- 
national name, and this I intend to do so long as I live. 
The candid and impartial reader will readily see that sim- 
ple justice demanded that, before calling me a " Campbell- 
ite," Dr. Lofton should have given clear evidence that I 
believe and practice things in religion originated by Mr. 
Campbell. But since he has not shown that I am a member 
of any religious institution founded by Alexander Campbell, 
or that I get my religious teaching " primarily " or other- 
wise from him, his " apology " for calling me a " Campbell- 
ite " cannot atone for the offense. 

Now, in order to test the Doctor's baseless " assumption," 
I will draw a parallel and leave the honest reader to de- 
termine how much truth there is in that assumption. We 
find in the eighth chapter of the book called "Acts of the 
Apostles " the evangelist Philip preaching Jesus to a noble- 



28 Why the Baptist Name. 

man called " the eunuch," and as they went on their way 
they came unto a certain water, and the eunuch said: " Be- 
hold, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? " 
The record further says that Philip baptized the eunuch, and 
that he went on his way rejoicing. This man believed in 
the Lord Jesus Christ, repented of his sins, and was buried 
in baptism. Was he a " Campbellite? " The Doctor will 
answer, " No." Very well, I believed in the Lord Jesus 
Christ, repented of my sins, and was buried in baptism. I 
did nothing more than did the eunuch, but exactly what 
he did; and if what he did did not make him a " Camp- 
bellite," how does it happen that these things made me a 
" Campbellite? " Here is work for you, Brother Lofton, 
and you should solve this knotty problem or admit that 
you have made a mistake. The eunuch did not, in so far as 
the record goes, rejoice until baptized, and this fact is 
very significant. The promise of the remission of sins was 
after baptism, and he did not rejoice until he came to the 
promise: " He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." 
(Mark 16: 16.) If Doctor Lofton insists that because I 
was baptized " for the remission of sins," that, there- 
fore, I must be a " Campbellite," because Campbell taught 
this, I will inform him that when I was baptized I had 
never read, heard read nor preached, one line that Mr. 
Campbell ever wrote. I could not have repeated a single 
verse in the Bible the day I was baptized. Having heard 
Brother J. C. McQuiddy preach a sermon in which he quoted 
the language of the apostle Peter to inquiring sinners (Acts 
2: 36-38), I believed what Peter said and did what he com- 
manded, understanding then, before I ever knew anything 
of Alexander Campbell's teaching regarding baptism or 
anything else, that baptism was for the remission of sins. 
Furthermore, I did not believe this because Brother Mc- 
Quiddy said it, but because Brother Simon Peter said it in 
these words: "Repent ye, and be baptized every one of 
you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your 
sins." (Acts 2: 38.) Therefore, I cannot accept Dr. Lof- 
ton's " apology," but feel that, in justice to himself as well 
as to others, he should refrain from calling the disciples of 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 29 

Christ " Campbellites " until he succeeds in convicting them 
of following the teaching of an uninspired man. I call 
upon Brother Lofton to show one thing that I believe and 
practice in religion that Alexander Campbell originated; 
and until he succeeds in so doing, good manners should 
restrain him from calling me a " Campbellite." 

He says : " They call us Baptists and stigmatize our name 
as unscriptural and sectarian." To a part of this I plead 
guilty. They call themselves " Baptists," and, according to 
Dr. Lofton, "cherish and honor" this name; therefore, in 
calling them " Baptists," I am doing exactly what they want 
me and every one else to do. I do claim and have shown 
by the clearest proof that the use Dr. Lofton makes of the 
name " Baptist " is sectarian and, therefore, unscriptural, 
because the Scriptures condemn " sects." But one person 
in all the Bible was called " Baptist," and, according to Dr. 
Lofton himself, he was so called because he baptized peo- 
ple. The name " Baptist " was never by divine authority 
applied to a religious institution, and as Dr. Lofton uses it 
for this purpose, it is unscriptural. My friend will nox 
say that the name " Baptist " includes all of the children 
of God on earth, and, therefore, it becomes sectarian in 
that it differentiates some who claim to be children of God 
from many others whom they recognize as the children of 
God also. 

The Doctor surprises us beyond measure when he claims 
that John was called a " Baptist " before he baptized any 
one, for be it remembered that in the very opening sentences 
of his tract he says: "His name was John, and he was 
called ' the Baptist,' because he baptized in Jordan." If 
he was called " the Baptist " because he baptized, then he 
could not have been a " Baptist " before that which made 
him a Baptist existed. Matthew wrote his Gospel long 
after John was dead, and hence uses the past tense. " In 
those days cometh John the Baptist, preaching in the wilder- 
ness of Judea." (Matt. 3:1.) John had acquired the name 
" Baptist," as Dr. Lofton has told us, from exercising the 
office of a baptizer, and Matthew wrote of him as such. 
The forerunner of Christ was referred to before he bap- 



30 Why the Baptist Name. 

tized as " the voice of one crying in the wilderness " (John 
1: 23), and, "There came a man, sent from God, whose 
name was John" (verse 6). Of course the name "Bap- 
tist," or rather " Immerser," is scriptural when applied to 
one who baptizes or immerses, but otherwise it is not a 
scriptural name. This fact my friend has not disproved, 
neither can he disprove it. 

No objection, let it be said, is offered against any one 
being called a " Baptist " who baptizes, but against the 
practice of applying this name to a religious institution or 
the members of the institution who do not baptize. There- 
fore, the Doctor must produce proof from the word of God 
that any religious institution was " fundamentally " or oth- 
erwise " developed " and called " the Baptist denomination 
by reason of the practice and teaching of John the Baptist." 
I cannot envy him his task, because it is one of impossi- 
bility. In his tract, in answer to the question, " When and 
where did the Baptists take their name?" he says: "For 
centuries they were called Anabaptists, Antipedobaptists, 
and usually designated, in different countries and periods, 
by the name of some great leader, or body, holding Baptist 
principles or peculiarities; but it was not until the seven- 
teenth century, in England, when, after centuries of strug- 
gle and blood, ' the woman in the wilderness ' came finally 
and fully into the open and took the general denominational 
name of Baptist as we now have it." Now compare this 
with what the Doctor says in another place — viz.: "I not 
only said that John was called ' The Baptist ' because he 
baptized, but that he was a Baptist, and so called because 
of the fundamental doctrines and principles which his bap- 
tism demanded." Think of one being called a " Baptist " 
because of the " fundamental doctrines and principles " 
which he taught, and yet not one of all the tens of thou- 
sands who taught these same " fundamental doctrines and 
principles " was ever called a " Baptist " until the seven- 
teenth century! According to my friend's own statement, 
sixteen centuries of the Christian era rolled away before 
any religious people were called " Baptists," and yet he 
says that the doctrine John taught involved the denomina- 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 31 

tional name " Baptist!" His appeal to Alexander Campbell 
for help in his hour of distress can furnish him no relief, 
for it is a well-known fact that, in emerging from the fog 
and mists of sectarianism, Mr. Campbell camped for a 
while with the Baptists, and it was during his sojourn with 
them that he wrote that John was " the first Baptist preach- 
er." After he learned the way of the Lord more perfectly, Mr. 
Campbell exchanged the language of Ashdod for that of the 
New Testament, a thing which Brother Lofton and all of 
his brethren should do. Besides all this, the prophets 
taught through the patriarchal and Jewish dispensations 
" faith and repentance," and this faith looked to the coming 
Messiah. Will our brother explain why none of these were 
called " Baptist," if the fundamental doctrine of faith 
and repentance involved the name " Baptist? " The Doctor 
says: "We are Baptists because we follow the principles 
and practice of John the Baptist." The " principles " 
taught by John were faith and repentance, while his " prac- 
tice " was that of immersing the people; hence, as only 
the regularly ordained preachers in the Doctor's church 
practice the immersing of people, it follows that they only 
are entitled to the name " Baptist." What, then, shall we 
call the " lay " members of Dr. Lofton's church? 

" In answer to my question, " If believing and practicing 
what John taught on the subject of repentance and faith 
make ' Baptists,' how does it happen that believing and 
practicing the same things make Methodists, Presbyterians, 
and Lutherans?" he says: "This was Baptist belief and 
practice before there were any Methodists, Presbyterians, 
Lutherans," etc. Well, it could not have been " Baptist " 
belief and practice before there were any Baptists; and if 
these things taught by the prophets did not make " Bap- 
tists," it is difficult indeed to see how they can make " Bap- 
tists " now. 

My erring friend says that I deny his position " that 
those whom John baptized received remission of sins be- 
fore baptism." Indeed I do, and not only I, but some of 
the ablest men in the Baptist Church do the same thing. 
The only witness he introduced in his tract to prove his 



32 Why the Baptist Name. 

position on this point was the infidel Jewish historian, Jose- 
phus, and up to this moment he has found none other upon 
whom he can lean for support. Hear him: "Josephus clear- 
ly expresses the design of John's baptism; and this is pre- 
cisely Baptist position." Did Josephus speak or write 
guided by divine inspiration when he said, " Baptism ap- 
pears acceptable to God, not in order that those who were 
baptized might get free from certain sins?" If not, then 
I prefer the testimony of the Holy Spirit, especially since 
he contradicts Josephus. The Holy Spirit says: "John 
came, who baptized in the wilderness and preached the bap- 
tism of repentance unto remission of sins." (Mark 1: 
4, A. R. V.) This is too plain to be explained away by 
Josephus, Dr. Lofton, or any one else. It simply means 
what it says, and it says that the baptism which was asso- 
ciated with and dependent upon repentance was for the 
remission of sins. John's " supposition or understanding " 
of the matter must be determined by what the Holy Spirit 
said — viz., " for the remission of sins." The Doctor throws 
overboard Bliss and Willmarth, two of the ablest and most 
scholarly men the Baptists ever had, and takes in their 
stead Josephus! Well, I shall add more testimony from 
the Baptists relative to the purpose or design of John's 
baptism, and now introduce the testimony of Dr. Thomas 
Armitage, who was president of the American Bible Union 
from 1856 to 1875, of whom the Baptist Encyclopedia says: 
" He is a scholarly man, full of information, with a power- 
ful intellect; and one of the greatest preachers in the 
United States; regarded by many as the foremost man in 
the American pulpit." He says: "He made their immer- 
sion in water the exterior method of ' confessing ' the real- 
ity of an honest, heartfelt reform. Here, then, he required 
a spiritual revolution, a baptism for the ' remission ' or 
forgiveness of sins, and the implanting of a new principle 
of life in keeping with the kingdom of heaven at hand." 
(" History of the Baptists," page 22.) Thus this great Bap- 
tist comments on the design of John's baptism in his his- 
tory, which is a standard work, and he is in perfect accord 
not only with Bliss and Willmarth, but with the majority of 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 33 

biblical scholars and translators of the holy oracles. Yes, 
I put over against Josephus the inspired apostle who wrote, 
■' Seeing ye have purified your souls in your obedience to 
the truth unto unfeigned love of the brethren" (1 Pet. 1: 
22), and enforced the fact that it takes obedience to purify 
the soul by the testimony of another inspired apostle who 
wrote: "But thanks be to God, that, whereas ye were 
servants of sin, ye became obedient from the heart to 
that form of teaching whereunto ye were delivered; and 
being made free from sin, ye became servants of righteous- 
ness." (Rom. 6: 17, 18.) There can be no disguising the 
fact that these were not freed from or forgiven of their 
sins until they had obeyed " that form of teaching," and 
the question is: What was that form? I say it was bap- 
tism, to which reference is made in the same chapter, in 
verses 3-5, and Brother Lofton unintentionally supports 
me in this contention. He refers to the " pattern, or tupon 
[type], of teaching whereunto God had delivered these Ro- 
man sinners," and he makes the teaching the " death, 
burial, and resurrection of Christ," which he says is " sym- 
bolized and set forth in baptism." Then death to the love 
of sin, burial in baptism, and resurrection from the grave 
of water must be the pattern, form, or type, which they 
obeyed in order to be made free from sin. His contention 
that this obedience is not outward or physical, but " heart 
obedience," does not relieve him from his trouble. There 
can be no such thing as obedience to God without the heart 
being involved, because it would simply be no obedience at 
all. If Dr. Lofton sings, prays, and eats the Lord's Supper 
acceptably to God, he must do these things from the heart, 
and yet each of them involves a physical act. The passage 
from MacKnight in which he says, " The apostle represents 
the gospel doctrine as a mold, into which the Romans were 
put in their baptism, in order to their being fashioned 
anew," was not given to " fit the Campbellite theory," as 
the Doctor asserts, but to show how honest translators and 
commentators handle the word of God. He was a great 
Presbyterian, and unwilling to pervert the truth in the 
defense of a human theory. My friend objects to having 
3 



34 Why the Baptist Name. 

the soul purified in God's way, which is by " obedience " to 
him. Of course God does the purifying, sanctifying, and 
saving, but he has seen proper to do this when we obey 
him; and as I have previously shown, salvation by grace 
does not exclude, but includes, acts of obedience which re- 
quire physical or overt expression. Salvation by grace is 
inseparable from the death of Christ, and we come into 
his death, or rather the benefits of his death, by baptism. 
" Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into 
Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?" (Rom. 6: 3.) 
The Doctor is in error when he says: "We die to sin 
through the death of Christ." We die to sin — that is, the 
love and practice of sin — when we believe and repent; but 
we do not come into the new state with the blessings of re- 
mission of sins and the hope of eternal life until we are 
raised from our burial in baptism. The Doctor should 
know that we claim no spiritual or moral change takes 
place in baptism, but that the heart must be prepared by 
faith and repentance for baptism. My friend says: "We 
never bury in order to death and resurrection." Well, who 
does? I am quite sure that the people he calls " Campbell- 
ites " do no such thing, and if what he says on this point is 
intended to represent their teaching, he has missed it the 
width of the heavens. Paul says: "For if we have become 
united with him in the likeness of his death, we shall be 
also in the likeness of his resurrection." (Rom. 6: 5.) 
This states most clearly that union with Christ is effected 
when we assume the likeness of his death, and this is done 
when we are buried in baptism in imitation of his burial 
in the heart of the earth. For fear Brother Lofton will 
call this " Campbellism," I will let the learned James Mac- 
Knight speak: 

1. Have been planted together in the likeness of his death. 
The burying of Christ and of believers, first in the water 
of baptism and afterwards in the earth, is fitly enough 
compared to the planting of seeds in the earth, because the 
effect in both cases is a reviviscence to a state of greater 
perfection. 

2. We shall also be in the likeness of his resurrection. 
Of the resurrection of believers,- Christ's resurrection is 
both an example and a proof. Wherefore our baptism, 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 35 

called in the preceding clause ' a planting together in the 
likeness of his death,' being both a memorial of Christ's 
death and resurrection and a prefiguration of our own, it 
teaches us that we shall die indeed through the malignity 
of sin, as Christ died; but through the merit of his death, 
and the efficacy of his power as Savior, we shall at the 
last day be raised from the dead as he was, to live with him 
and with God eternally. Our baptism setting these things 
before us, the daily recollection of it ought to stir us up to 
every religious and virtuous action, that we may be meet 
for the society of God and Christ through all eternity. 
" Commentary on the Epistles," on Rom. 6:5.) 

Thus this learned Presbyterian sustains my position that 
'• in the likeness of his death " refers to baptism, by which 
we become united to Christ. 

I introduced J. W. McGarvey on a matter of grammatical 
criticism relative to the passage regarding John's baptism 
(Mark 1: 4), and the reader cannot fail to note how utterly 
Brother Lofton has failed to answer him. The point was 
made that the Greek preposition eis is never used to ex- 
press the idea that one thing is done because of another 
thing having been done, which would have to be true in 
order for the Doctor to prove that John baptized " because 
of " remission of sins. 

The Doctor contends that " the Scriptures show that 
repentance and faith are the sole conditions of the remis- 
sion of sins," and cites a number of passages to prove it. 
Now, if I shall show that any one of these does not sustain 
my friend's contention, I have proven that they all fail 
him, because they are kindred passages. But to be liberal, 
I shall notice more than one. " Thus it is written, that the 
Christ should suffer, and rise again from the dead the third 
day; and that repentance and remission of sins should be 
preached in his name unto all the nations, beginning from 
Jerusalem." (Luke 24: 46, 47.) This passage does not 
mention " faith," one of the Doctor's sole conditions of 
salvation, at all. Doubtless he will contend that, while it 
is not mentioned, it is implied. How will he determine 
this? He will have to go to Jerusalem after the death of 
Christ, where this preaching was to begin, and see if 
" faith," one of his sole conditions of remission of sins, is 



36 Why the Baptist Name. 

mentioned. This takes him to the Acts of Apostles, and 
what does he find? "Let all the house of Israel therefore 
know assuredly, that God hath made him both Lord and 
Christ, this Jesus whom ye crucified." (Acts 2: 36.) To 
" know assuredly " is to believe with all the heart, and, 
therefore, the Doctor has found his condition of " faith " 
even though it does precede repentance. What next? " Now 
when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, 
and said unto Peter and the rest of the apostles, Brethren, 
what shall we do? And Peter said unto them, Repent ye." 
"There is the other condition!" exclaims Dr. Lofton. But 
the Doctor interrupted Peter, and we must let him finish 
his answer to those believers. " Repent ye, and be baptized 
every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the re- 
mission of your sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the 
Holy Spirit." (Acts 2: 37, 38.) Unfortunately for the 
Doctor's position, in addition to finding the missing condi- 
tion of faith, from Luke 24: 47 he finds another condition 
between the sinner and the remission of sins — viz., baptism. 
So he finds that remission of sins was preached in the 
name of Christ upon the conditions of faith, repentance, 
and baptism. The fact that baptism was not mentioned in 
Luke 24: 47 does not prove that it was not implied, any 
more than the fact that faith was not mentioned fails to 
prove it was not implied. Another passage upon which 
he relies is this : " Repent ye therefore, and turn again, 
that your sins may be blotted out, that so there may come 
seasons of refreshing from the presence of the Lord." 
(Acts 3: 19.) This passage shows that instead of "remis- 
sion of sins " following immediately upon " repentance," 
they were told to " turn again " that their sins might be 
blotted out. Mark you, the apostle did not say, " Repent, 
that your sins may be blotted out," but he said: "Repent, 
and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out." They 
were to do something after they repented, and what was it? 
Evidently it was exactly what they were told to do in Acts 
2: 38 — viz.: "Repent ye, and be baptized, that your sins 
may be blotted out," or, which is equivalent, " for the re- 
mission of your sins." This must be true, for an inspired 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 37 

man would not tell sinners at one time to do certain 
things in order to be saved and then tell them to do less 
at another time. 

The Doctor also made the statement that "John's baptism 
was Christian baptism." This is not true, for John did not 
baptize into the name of Christ, nor yet in the name or 
by the authority of Christ, which would have been neces- 
sary in order for his baptism to be Christian baptism. The 
Doctor assumes without one word of proof that those men- 
tioned in Acts 19: 1-5 had been "misled as to the nature 
of John's doctrine and baptism " as the reason why they 
were commanded to be baptized " into the name of the 
Lord Jesus." To put this matter at rest, I will submit the 
following: "Now a certain Jew named Apollos, an Alex- 
andrian by race, an eloquent man, came to Bphesus; and 
he was mighty in the Scriptures. This man had been in- 
structed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in 
spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concern- 
ing Jesus, knowing only the baptism of John: and he began 
to speak boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and 
Aquila heard him, they took him unto them, and expounded 
unto him the way of God more perfectly." (Acts 18: 
24-26.) This man's lack of knowledge is qualified by the 
statement, " knowing only the baptism of John," which 
shows that he was making no distinction between the bap- 
tism of John and the baptism authorized by Christ. This 
knowledge was supplied by Priscilla and Aquila, who taught 
him the way of the Lord more perfectly, just as many 
humble disciples could teach Brother Lofton the way of 
the Lord more perfectly if he would only let them. 



Dr. Lofton's Second Reply. 

Brother Smith declines my apology for calling his peo- 
ple " Campbellites " in my saying that they are " a well- 
known denomination, so called from Alexander Campbell, 
whose teaching and practice they have followed." I only 
state a commonly recognized fact. They teach substantial- 



38 Why the Baptist Name. 

ly what he taught, and have so taught by unbroken suc- 
cession from him as their organizer and founder from his 
day to this. If not, where did they originate? They have 
assumed the name "Christian;" but Alexander Campbell 
himself advised them against the use of the name as a de- 
nominational distinction; and so by courtesy they have 
been called " Disciples," " Reformers," and the like. Some 
of them call the others a most sectarian sect, if I read the 
Gospel Advocate aright. 

My opponent draws a parallel between the eunuch and 
himself, as to faith and baptism, and asks if the eunuch 
was a Campbellite. Of course not. Philip did not preach 
baptism for the remission of sins as Alexander Campbell 
did; and the eunuch went on his way rejoicing because he 
was conscious of being saved and had done his duty. My 
brother says that when he was baptized, he was wholly 
ignorant of Alexander Campbell and his teaching and could 
not repeat a verse of Scripture; but on hearing Elder J. C. 
McQuiddy preach from Acts 2: 38 he believed and was 
baptized for the remission of sins. Of course he believed 
what Peter said according to McQuiddy, like thousands of 
others have done who knew no more about the Bible, at 
the time, than he claims to have known. Following Mc- 
Quiddy's interpretation, my opponent became a Camp- 
bellite, consciously or not, so being made by McQuiddy, 
the most vigorous of Campbellites and of the " straitest 
sect." 

My opponent pleads guilty to my charge that the Camp- 
bellites not only call us " Baptists," as we prefer, but 
" stigmatize our name as unscriptural and sectarian." His 
argument is that the name " Baptist " is unscriptural and 
sectarian because the Bible "condemns sects;" that "the 
name was never by divine authority applied to a religious 
institution;" that it does not include all the children of 
God on earth, so recognized by Baptists. I reply that the 
name " Christian " was never applied by the Scriptures to 
a religious institution, but it is a good scriptural designa- 
tion; and so of the word " Baptist," which does include all 
the children of God scripturally baptized upon faith and so 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 39 

related to the New Testament churches as Baptists main- 
tain them. If Baptists are right, as they hold, they are not 
a " sect," whatever the differentiation otherwise with other 
Christians. 

Elder Smith says that I surprise him in claiming that 
John was called a Baptist before he baptized any one. I 
said nothing of the kind, but said that " in the very first 
mention of his ministry he is called 'John the Baptist 
preaching in the wilderness,' " etc.; and I used this fact to 
show the emphasis of his title, " the Baptist," in the prop- 
agandism of his teaching as signalized by his baptism. My 
opponent says: " Of course the name ' Baptist ' is scriptural 
when applied to one who baptizes, but otherwise it is not 
a scriptural name." Thanks for the partial admission! All 
our administrators of baptism, then, are Baptists, just like 
John; but I hold all those we baptize are Baptists, since the 
ordinance signifies the fundamental principles which chief- 
ly make Baptists, and which, with Baptists, are more im- 
portant than baptism itself; and, if so, then the application 
of the name " Baptist " to our churches is perfectly scrip- 
tural. 

But my opponent still denies that the Baptist denomina- 
tion was fundamentally or otherwise developed by reason 
of the teaching and practice of John the Baptist. He 
quotes my statement that it was not until the seventeenth 
century that we " took the general denominational name 
of Baptist as we now have it;" that "for centuries we 
were called 'Anabaptists,' 'Antipedobaptists,' and by other 
names holding to Baptist principles and peculiarities;" 
and so he says my claim involves a gap of sixteen cen- 
turies in the absence of the Baptist name; but history, as 
it looks back, characterizes us as "Baptists," by whatever 
name called, and as following the teaching and practice 
of John the Baptist, of Christ, and the apostles, holding 
the word of God as the only pattern of faith. Occasion- 
ally writers of those centuries spoke of us as " Baptistici," 
" Taufer," " Dooper," and the like; and the word "Anabap- 
tist," the martyr stigma of those centuries, was only the 
word " Baptist," with its prefix ana, which was lost in the 



40 Why the Baptist Name. 

seventeenth century, when we began to be called simply 
" Baptists," as we had always been. Alexander Campbell 
was right when he called John " the first Baptist preacher." 
Pity he ever deserted the ancient Baptist camp and learned 
the way of the Lord more imperfectly. Brother Smith is 
quick to apologize for or defend Alexander Campbell. 
Touch a " Christian," as sectarianized, and you will find a 
Campbellite every time. 

Again I repeat that Josephus was an able, competent, 
and disinterested witness of the position of John the Bap- 
tist — namely, that " baptism was acceptable to God, not in 
order that those who were baptized might be free from 
certain sins, but in order that the body might be sanctified 
[washed], because the soul beforehand had already been 
purified through righteousness." In other words, the out- 
ward baptism of the body was symbolic of the inward 
cleansing of the soul, which is precisely Baptist position; 
and it cannot be shown that Josephus, as a historian, had 
any motive in perverting John's teaching and practice, 
and must have, as John's contemporary, known John's well- 
known position at the time. Not only so, but Josephus is 
in perfect accord with the Scriptures, which teach that 
John baptized unto, or on account of, repentance, including 
faith in Christ to come, which required confession of sin 
and reformation of life, or righteousness of soul, before 
baptism; and this baptism which presupposed repentance, 
and which is called the " baptism of repentance unto re- 
mission of sins," presupposed remission of sins and sym- 
bolized the fact as the effect of repentance, in perfect ac- 
cord with Josephus' statement. Any other interpretation 
makes baptism both essential to repentance and remission 
of sins, which is absurd — Bliss, "Willmarth, and McGarvey 
to the contrary notwithstanding. 

My opponent's use of Dr. Armitage, like that of Dr. 
Hovey, absolutely fails in the light of their writings. Dr. 
Armitage distinctly says: "The apostle (Peter) insists 
that the purity of your conscience as a saved man must 
correspond to the profession which you make when you 
are buried with Christ in baptism." ("Baptist History," 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 41 

page 140.) In the passage cited by my opponent from his 
history (page 22), it is clear that he meant nothing more 
by John's baptism than " the exterior method of confess- 
ing " an inward " reality," which involved a " spiritual 
revolution " and the " implanting of a new principle of 
life " through the remission of sins as symbolized by bap- 
tism. No man ever lived further from the doctrine of the 
remission of sins by baptism than Armitage. 

My opponent cites again 1 Pet. 1: 22 and Rom. 6: 17, 18, 
against Josephus and in favor of his theory of external 
obedience in baptism, in order to purification of soul and 
freedom from sin. As I have shown before, Peter refers 
to faith and hope in God, through Christ, as the heart obe- 
dience of the elect through which they were purified in 
soul, without the slightest inference of outward or phys- 
ical obedience; and the obedience of Rom. 6: 17, 18 is 
likewise a heart obedience to the gospel of grace and of 
justification through faith — that pattern or type of teach- 
ing whereunto God had delivered the Romans — as ap- 
posed to works or legalism; and this heart obedience had 
been wrought through faith in Christ — in his death, burial, 
and resurrection — as symbolized and set forth by baptism 
in the beginning of the chapter. Against MacKnight, Al- 
ford, Lange, DeWette, Olshausen, Meyer, Calvin, Haldane, 
and a host of others take the view that the gospel — this 
Pauline type of teaching — is here meant without any ref- 
erence to baptism; and the heart obedience of the Romans 
was that of faith, the first exercise of obedience com- 
manded of God and essential to salvation. See " obedience 
of faith" (Rom. 1: 5); "unto obedience of faith" (Rom. 
16: 26); "obedient unto the faith" (Acts 6: 7). There 
are many forms of external obedience; but there must first 
be the passive obedience of saving faith in the heart, " unto 
righteousness" before there can be any active obedience 
unto confession, baptism, or good work, " acceptable unto 
God." 

Brother Smith says that I am in error when I say, 
"We die to sin through the death of Christ;" but I said: 
" This spiritual product is the effect of faith, and not of 



42 Why the Baptist Name. 

baptism, which only displays the fact by its ' likeness ' 
and teaching." He says : " We die to sin — that is, to the 
love and practice of sin — when we believe and repent; but 
we do not come into the new state with the blessings of 
remission of sins and the hope of eternal life until we are 
raised from our burial in baptism." No spiritual or moral 
change, he says, takes place in baptism — only the heart 
must be prepared by faith and repentance for baptism. 
He denies that in baptism he buries in order to death 
and resurrection, and claims union with Christ when he 
assumes the " likeness " of Christ's death, through bap- 
tism, in imitation of his burial in the earth. 

If I understand, then, the moral and spiritual cnange 
takes place in faith and repentance — the soul dying to 
sin and becoming alive to righteousness, being regener- 
ated; and here we have a believing, penitent, loving soul 
subject to damnation for want of forgiveness, change of 
state, and union with Christ, attained only in water. With 
all the preparation of heart, moral and spiritual change of 
soul, the believing penitent is still dead to grace and 
damned by law, still separated from Christ, and must be 
buried in water in order to die to the law, be united to 
Christ, and reach a state of grace. There is nothing like 
this anomaly in Scripture; and it is abhorrent to the sym- 
bolism of baptism which represents us as already dead to 
sin and free from the law — as born of God and united to 
Christ — when we are buried with him in the " likeness " 
of his death and raised with him in the " likeness " of his 
resurrection. The citation from MacKnight (Rom. 6: 5) 
makes " reviviscence " of soul from planting in baptism, 
like "reviviscence" of body from planting in the grave, 
bald baptismal regeneration, and indorsed by Brother 
Smith! I deny, however, that the Dutch Baptists ever 
held such a heresy; and Dr. Christian says that the cita- 
tion from the Dutch book, 1523 A.D., on being further 
read and understood, is Baptistically orthodox. Brother 
Smith's theory is impossible of " moral and spiritual 
change " growing out of his discursive belief and repent- 
ance, through the truth, without the direct operation of 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 43 

the Holy Spirit in conversion; and his delusion is still 
greater in the theory that such a " change " could be af- 
fected or perfected in water, however badly it needs water 
to help it. Campbellisrn knows nothing of spiritual 
" change." 

My opponent says I utterly failed to answer J. "W. Mc- 
Garvey on a grammatical criticism relative to the baptism 
of John (Mark 1: 4), and I refer the reader to that point 
of my discussion to judge for himself. The point, my 
opponent says, was that the Greek preposition eis is never 
used to express the idea that one thing is done because 
of another having been done; and in my position that 
John baptized (eis) because of repentance, I cited a sim- 
ilar use of eis (Matt. 12: 41), in which it is said that the 
Ninevites repented (eis) at the preaching of Jonah — that 
is, because of the preaching of Jonah. Here one thing was 
done because of another thing having been done — expressed 
by eis. 

My opponent then turned to the passages of Scripture 
which I cited in proof of the fact that remission is solely 
conditioned upon repentance and faith. He says my first 
citation (Luke 24: 46, 47) does not mention faith, one of 
my conditions, which I hold implied if not expressed. He 
assumes to show, however, that it was supplied, and how, 
on the day of Pentecost, but put before repentance, which 
was followed by baptism, his third condition of sin's re- 
mission. He cites Acts 2: 36 in proof: "Let all the house 
of Israel know assuredly that God hath made him both 
Lord and Christ," etc. To " know assuredly," he says, is 
faith that here precedes repentance; for " when they heard 
this " and " were pierced in their heart," they asked what 
they should do, and Peter said: "Repent ye, and be bap- 
tized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for 
the remission of your sins." To " know assuredly " the 
fact of Christ's crucifixion and Lordship was not faith eis 
Christ for salvation, but only that belief of the truth 
which led these people to conviction of sin, piercing their 
hearts. In their darkness and doubt they asked Peter 
what they should do — that is, to be saved — and he replied 



44 Why the Baptist Name. 

with the old first condition first: "Repent ye, and be bap- 
tized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ [trust- 
ing in him] for the remission of your sins," precisely as in 
Acts 10: 43-47, where faith (implying previous repentance) 
is mentioned as the only condition of remission, and where 
baptism follows conversion. 

The same old order of repentance and faith was ob- 
served on and after, as before, the day of Pentecost. Paul 
says (Acts 20: 21), " Testifying both to Jews and to Greeks 
repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus 
Christ;" and there never was a conversion in which (with 
a preceding belief of the truth-producing conviction) re- 
pentance and faith, in this order, did not operate. In this 
order they always imply each other, as the medium of 
salvation by grace and the ground of sin's remission; and 
in this order they always imply baptism as the sign of 
sin's remission. Saving faith before repentance is not 
only illogical and absurd, but unscriptural and impossible; 
for repentance toward God, based upon a conviction of the 
truth, leads to saving faith which accepts Christ as a per- 
sonal Redeemer. Saving faith begins in repentance, and 
repentance ends in saving faith; and both leave their 
genesis in that belief of the truth which leads to convic- 
tion of sin and the necessity for Christ. This is the work 
of God in the heart — the regeneration of the soul and the 
cleansing from sin — finished at saving faith; and the work 
of conversion, on man's part, is confession, baptism, and 
good deeds, which are the sign and evidence of the fact 
— not the cause, lest men should boast and glory. 

On this very point my opponent refers to my citation of 
Acts 3 : 19 : " Repent ye therefore, and turn again, that your 
sins may be blotted out," etc. He insists that " turn 
again" means baptism, in order to remission of sins; but 
the text is the same as a hundred like it, both in the Old 
and the New Testaments, in which God forgives sin upon 
repentance evidenced by turning or conversion. No man 
ever realized repentance, involving saving faith in Christ, 
that God did not immediately forgive; and no man ever 
had such repentance that did not turn, or was not con- 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 45 

verted, and so follow Christ in baptism, if not misguided 
in duty. Blood alone blots out sin, through faith, the sole 
medium or condition of salvation; and baptism cannot be 
the condition of a condition without making the condition 
of " none effect." All of grace and none of any kind of 
work, lest man should glory! 

I said that John's baptism was " Christian baptism," 
but Elder Smith denies upon the ground that John " did 
not baptize into the name of Christ, nor yet in the name 
or by the authority of Christ." Nevertheless, John bap- 
tized unto Christ to come, baptized Christ himself, and his 
baptism was adopted and perpetuated by Christ and his 
apostles. Not only so, but it was held valid as adminis- 
tered by John upon all Christ's disciples who constituted 
the membership of the first church, according to the ad- 
mission of Brother Smith himself. Granting everything 
he says of Acts 19: 1-5; 18: 24-26, as applicable to the case, 
the only defect of the Ephesus baptism was the anachron 
ism of baptizing twelve men with reference to Christ to 
come instead of Christ already come; but this in no way 
affects the mode, design, or validity of John's baptism, as 
Christian baptism, submitted to and adopted by Christ and 
held valid by his apostles on the day of Pentecost. 

The formula upon which my brother seems to lay sac- 
ramental stress (in the name of the Trinity) was not ob- 
served by Paul at Ephesus, where he baptized the twelve 
simply " in the name of the Lord Jesus," in order to em- 
phasize the change as to time; but this triune formula 
was the result of gradual development as to baptism. The 
Father gave John the first administration of baptism; 
John gave it to the Son; and when the dispensation of the 
Holy Spirit came, the administration of the ordinance as- 
sumed the threefold formula of Father, Son, and Holy 
Spirit — always having been the same baptism, symbolic of 
death, burial, and resurrection, of regeneration and re- 
mission, and of our union with Christ, and never affected 
by the red tape of officialism or sacramentalism. 

(See Mr. Smith's Review of the foregoing on page 271.) 



46 Why the Baptist Name. 



II. 

"BELIEVERS' BAPTISM AS OPPOSED TO 
INFANT BAPTISM." 

Mr. Smith's First Review. 

Dr. Lofton says that "John established two great funda- 
mental Baptist principles:" (1) "Believers' baptism as op- 
posed to infant baptism;" (2) "Believers' baptism as op- 
posed to baptismal remission or regeneration." 

I fully agree with the author that, in baptizing only those 
who believed and repented, John announced a great fun- 
damental principle, but am wholly unable to see by what 
authority it is termed a " Baptist principle." John was 
not the first teacher sent of God to demand faith and re- 
pentance, as Dr. Lofton well knows. God has always re- 
quired men to believe, and, when they sinned, to repent. 
Why, then, conclude from the fact that John reiterated and 
emphasized these commands that they are Baptistic? Fur- 
thermore, as has been shown, these principles are not pecul- 
iar to the Baptist Church, seeing there are those who are 
not Baptists that hold these principles. 

All the author says against the practice of infant baptism 
is heartily indorsed, but some of the reasons he assigns for 
opposing the practice are clearly unscriptural. All he says 
against the doctrine of "baptismal regeneration" receives 
an emphatic indorsement by the writer fully as well. But 
when the Doctor asserts that Christ and the apostles held 
" repentance and faith " as " the only credentials by which 
to enter the covenant of grace and the kingdom of heaven," 
he is in error. Jesus Christ taught: "Except one be born 
of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom 
of God." (John 3: 5.) Since the author has appealed to 
the scholarship of the world to prove that the word "bap- 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 47 

tize " means to " immerse," surely he will not object to my 
appealing to the same source to prove that the word " wa- 
ter " in John 3 : 5 means " baptism." Therefore the first 
witness I introduce is J. R. Graves, who was recognized as 
one of the ablest Baptists of the South. Hear him: 

If Brother Vaughn convinced us that " born of water " 
refers to anything but the baptism of one previously born 
of the Spirit, we never knew it, and we would have owned 
it to him and our readers. It means nothing else, and no 
Baptist that we ever heard or read of ever believed other- 
wise until A. Campbell frightened them away from an in- 
terpretation that is sustained by the consensus of all schol- 
ars of all denominations of all ages." (Tennessee Baptist, 
page 5, October 30, 1886.) 

This was written in reply to a query from Mrs. Matilda 
T. Hoy. Now, unless the Doctor can show that people en- 
ter " the covenant of grace and the kingdom of heaven " 
without being born again, his position that " faith and re- 
pentance " are all that is necessary must be false, because 
one cannot be born again without being baptized. What- 
ever the birth may be, it consists of two elements — viz., 
water and Spirit — and the scholarship of " all denomina- 
tions of all ages " unite in saying that the water refers to 
baptism. 

John T. Christian, a noted Baptist author and writer of 
ability, in searching the records of early Baptist history, 
copied in the Western Recorder of January 1, 1903, a chap- 
ter from a book written in Dutch in 1523. Here are a few 
extracts, with modernized spelling: 

Then when we be baptized it behoveth us to know surely 
and to believe that all our sins are pardoned, and that we 
be made the children of God. ... By his blood he hath 
bought us again from the devil, by the water he hath 
washed and purged us who were defiled and infected, for 
to offer us pure and clean unto the Father. First, he [the 
sinner] fleeth from Pharaoh when he beginneth to know his 
subjection and bondage by the which he was subject and 
servant unto the devil, and when he desireth to be enfran- 
chised from his sin, and from Pharaoh, which is the devil. 
But he may not escape from Pharaoh without passing 
through the Red Sea — that is to say, he may not escape 
from the devil without he must be baptized. And for be- 
cause that the children of Israel when they saw that Pha- 



48 Why the Baptist Name. 

raah followed them believed God, therefore upon that faith 
in God they entered into the sea, as though they were gone 
into death; but by means of their faith they have passed 
the water and are gone as from death unto life. So, if any 
man will escape from the hands of the devil, it behoveth 
him to enter into the water. . . . Pharaoh, that is to 
say, the devil, with our sins pursues us. But they drove 
themselves in the water — that is to say, the power of the 
devil and all of our sins perish when we enter into the wa- 
ter with such a faith. 

Now, if Brother Lofton calls this "baptismal regener- 
ation," let him remember that it was the doctrine of the 
Baptists three hundred and eighty years ago. Furthermore, 
in order to trace his " unbroken " line of " apostolic suc- 
cession " back, as he claims, to John the Baptist, he must 
pass through these Dutch Baptists, which furnish rather a 
peculiar link in the Doctor's chain. 

Speaking further on this point, the Doctor says: " Under 
the covenant of grace the provisional atonement of Christ 
covers the sin of the human race until the years of account- 
ability." Wrong again, for the human race has no sin for 
which to atone until they become sinners by committing 
sin in the same way that Adam did — viz., by transgression; 
for sin is the transgression of law. (1 John 3: 4.) Hence, 
as infants and idiots are not subjects of law, they are not 
under law. The author bases his statement on this point 
upon the assumption that infants are born in sin, and, 
therefore, have what is called "Adamic " or " inherited " 
sin. Proving it instead of merely asserting it as a fact 
would be better logic. 

Again, the Doctor says: " The spiritual children of Abra- 
ham, subject to baptism, are all the children of God by faith 
in Christ, ' according to promise.' " Abraham has no " spir- 
itual children " subject to baptism. They are not the " spir- 
itual " children of Abraham until after baptism. " For ye 
are all sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus. For as 
many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ. 
There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither 
bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for ye all 
are one man in Christ Jesus. And if ye are Christ's, then 
are ye Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise." (Gal. 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 49 

3: 26-29.) Now note that in order to be Abraham's chil- 
dren they must first be Christ's, and they become Christ's 
by putting him on in baptism. After stating that they were 
" all sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus," the apos- 
tle immediately gives the reason for the statement — viz.: 
" For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put 
on Christ." 

The author makes another statement so at variance with 
the truth that it cannot go unchallenged; that is, that one 
dying in " infancy " or " irresponsibility " is " saved by the 
blood of the covenant." All who die in infancy or irrespon- 
sibility are safe without the blood of Christ. They have 
never been lost, and consequently need no salvation from 
sin. Jesus Christ shed his blood for the remission of sins 
(Matt. 26: 28) ; and in so far as infants and the irrespon- 
sible in general are concerned, they do not need the aton- 
ing blood. 

Brother Lofton says that " baptism is a retrospective gos- 
pel ordinance." Yes, but in one sense only, and that is ex- 
pressed by the apostle Paul in writing to Christians, thus: 
" Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into 
Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?" (Rom. 6: 3.) 
Baptism points back to the time when we were baptized 
into the benefits of the death or blood of Christ, but our good 
brother has people saved apart from the death of Christ 
by having them saved before baptism. 

The author refers to the great commission; but he should 
know that it is a dangerous document for a Baptist to han- 
dle, especially when they use it as the Doctor has in the 
present instance. This is the way he treats the commis- 
sion: "He that beMevetJi and is baptized." Why did he not 
go further and say " shall be saved? " The reason is ob- 
vious, for that would be placing salvation after baptism, 
which would have upset all of his doctrine on the subject. 
I will let an eminent Baptist help Brother Lofton with the 
commission: 

Thus our Savior said, just before he ascended the heav- 
ens: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." 
We shall hardly dare to tamper with his royal word and 
make it run, He that believeth and is saved shall be bap- 

4 



50 Why the Baptist Name. 

tized. And unless we do thus change his saying, we have, 
by the highest authority, an importance attributed to bap- 
tism certainly not less than that given to it in Acts 2: 38, 
translated according to its obvious meaning. What, then, 
is the advantage of violently torturing eis, the construction 
and the context? (James W. Willmarth, " Baptism and Re- 
mission," in Baptist Quarterly, July, 1877, page 306.) 

There is but one other point in this section of Brother 
Lofton's tract that demands attention — viz. : " The babe is 
never washed until he is born; so of the child born of God 
and baptized in water." He persists in mutilating the 
words of the Son of God, as if they were of no more impor- 
tance than the words of man. He cut the commission by 
saying, " He that believeth and is baptized," and now he per- 
verts John 3: 5. Jesus emphatically states that one must 
be born of " water and the Spirit," but Brother Lofton says 
he must be born of the Spirit and then be baptized. Why 
such treatment of the holy oracles? For no other reason 
under heaven but to get rid of the Bible doctrine of bap- 
tism for the remission of sins. Those not familiar with the 
Bible use of metaphorical or figurative language will be in- 
clined to think the Doctor has made a telling point here. 
He has pressed a figure of speech beyond its legitimate 
bounds and made it do service for a literal construction. 
Of course a natural babe " is never washed until born," but 
in the birth of a spiritual babe there is a washing, and that 
washing is in the water of "baptism. Jesus Christ said it 
and the apostles reiterated it. " Husbands, love your wives, 
even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself up 
for it; that he might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the 
washing of water with the word." (Eph. 5: 25, 26.) The 
cleansing here is in the past tense, and refers to the time of 
their baptism. Adam Clarke says that " washing of water " 
here means baptism; and so do John Wesley, MacKnight, 
and, in fact, all commentators of any note. 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 51 

Dr. Lofton's First Reply. 

Elder Smith agrees with me that in baptizing only 
those who repented and believed, John established two great 
fundamental principles: (1) "Believers' baptism as op- 
posed to infant baptism;" (2) "Believers' baptism as op- 
posed to baptismal remission, or regeneration." But he is 
unable to see why they are called " Baptist principles." 
His argument is that "John was not the first teacher sent 
of God to demand repentance and faith" True as to re- 
pentance and faith; but John is the first who preached re- 
pentance toward God and faith in Christ to come, for the 
remission of sins, and symbolized the fact by baptism — all 
in view of Christ's kingdom at hand, and in the introduc- 
tion of our new dispensation of which Christ is Head, the 
Spirit is Guide, the gospel is law, and the church the visible 
embodiment. These two fundamental principles are Bap- 
tist principles because Baptists, from the first, have main- 
tained them and never perverted them by any unscriptural 
theory of repentance and faith, nor by any perversion of 
the subject and design of baptism. 

My opponent denies my proposition: "Repentance and 
faith, individually professed, are the only credentials by 
which to enter the covenant of grace and the kingdom of 
heaven, visibly symbolized by baptism." " But as many as 
received him, to them gave he the right to become children 
of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were 
born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of 
the will of man, BUT OF GOD." (John 1: 12, 13.) He 
cites me to John 3 : 5 : " Except a man be born of water and 
the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." First 
of all, Jesus taught Nicodemus (John 3: 3) : " Except a man 
be born anew \_from above], he cannot see [spiritually dis- 
cern] the kingdom of God." Having presented the spiritual 
aspect, or the soul's apprehension of God's kingdom, he 
proceeds, in the second step, to present the visible as well 
as the invisible aspect of that complete change by which 
the Spirit-born is related to God's kingdom as embodied in 
the organism and life of God's people; and he said: " Ex- 



52 Why the Baptist Name. 

cept one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the 
kingdom of God." Nicodemus knew of John's baptism and 
its rejection by the Jewish rulers; and it is possible that 
baptism was suggested in the conversation. Hence, Jesus 
includes the birth of water with the birth of the Spirit, the 
outward as well as the inward, as essential to visible en- 
trance into God's kingdom, which every one must spirit- 
ually " see " before visibly entering by " water." 

In the third place, Jesus (John 3: 6-8) fixes the emphasis 
on the Spirit birth contrasted with the fleshly, or sinful, 
birth, and apart from the water birth. He repeats John 3: 
3 — " Marvel not that I said unto thee, ye must be born 
anew [from above'];" and he then defines the nature and 
manner of the Spirit birth, signifies its exclusive impor- 
tance, and so teaches Nicodemus the uselessness of the 
water birth except as the outward sign of the Spirit birth, 
which is the sovereign work of God. " The Spirit [wind] 
breatheth where he will, and thou hearest the voice there- 
of, but knowest not whence he cometh, and whither he 
goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit." This is 
the real meaning of the text; and except for visible rela- 
tionship to God's kingdom, and as a figure of the Spirit 
birth, the water birth has absolutely no significance what- 
ever. Jesus continues to lead the puzzled Nicodemus into 
the light of the Spirit birth from above by showing that 
he himself was from above; and when he reaches the ser- 
pent on the pole, the figure of his crucifixion, and points 
out faith in him as the sole ground of salvation (John 3: 
14-16), he gave the concrete solution of the problem of the 
" new birth." It was here, doubtless, Nicodemus believed 
and was converted; for, like Joseph of Arimathea, he seems 
to have been a secret disciple of the Lord, made manifest 
on the day of the crucifixion. 

Otherwise, the water birth becomes the medium of the 
Spirit birth in a literal bath of regeneration, which pre- 
sents the anomaly of burying a sinner in water to kill him 
to sin in order to birth of God; also the anachronism of 
washing a sinner in order to birth, or before he is born. 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 53 

Baptism is the symbol of washing the newborn babe in 
Christ, after being born of God. 

John 3 : 5, according to Dr. Strong, is one of the instances 
of symbolic language, where a single part of a complex 
action is mentioned for the whole of it — in which the whole 
of the solemn transaction is designated by the external 
symbol. Here birth of water, the outward aspect of the 
birth of Spirit, has precedence as the condition of entrance 
into the kingdom of God; but the literal scriptures, as 
John 3: 7; Eph. 2: 2; John 5: 21; Acts 16: 14; Jer. 31: 
33; James 1: 18; 1 Pet. 1: 23; John 5: 24; John 3: 8; John 
1: 12, 13; Eph. 2: 10; 1 Pet. 1: 3; 1 Cor. 3: 5-7, determine 
that God, through the agency of the Spirit, by means of the 
Word, bestows the new birth to all who repent of sin and 
believe in Christ for salvation. Paul plants and Apollos 
waters the seed (the Word), but God alone gives the in- 
crease, develops the germ and makes the seed grow — as the 
Lord works in him that believes in Christ — and all this 
without a single reference to baptism. These and many 
other scriptures on the subject are absolutely unconditioned 
upon or by baptism, and I am perfectly safe in the propo- 
sition of my tract: "Repentance and faith, individually 
professed, are the only credentials by which to enter the 
covenant of grace and the kingdom of heaven, visibly sym- 
bolized by baptism." 

Under this head my Brother Smith quotes from Dr. Chris- 
tian an extract taken from a Dutch writer (1523), which 
seems to tally with Campbellite views of baptism. I should 
have to see the book as a whole before passing judgment 
upon the contents of this figurative extract; but, whoever 
or whatever this Dutch writer was, he does not here re- 
flect the position of the Dutch Anabaptists of the sixteenth 
or subsequent centuries. This is not the doctrine of the 
Doopsgezinden, or Mennonites, the descendants of the 
Dutch Baptists. 

My opponent, touching the ground of infant salvation, 
denies my proposition: "Under the covenant of grace 
the provisional atonement of Christ covers the sin of the 
human race until the years of accountability." He assumes 



54 Why the Baptist Name. 

that the human race has no sin to atone for until it sins 
as Adam did in the transgression of law; that infants and 
idiots are not born in sin or under law; and that there is 
no such thing as "Adamic " or " inherited sin." He charges 
me with making assertions without proof; but he seems 
dogmatically to be guilty of the same thing himself. 

The Scriptures (Rom. 5: 12-19) emphatically teach that 
Adam constituted his posterity " sinners," and that 
through him sin, death, and condemnation " passed upon 
all men." " Through one trespass the judgment came unto 
all men to condemnation." " Through one act of righteous- 
ness the free gift came unto all men to justification of life." 
" Through the one man's disobedience the many were made 
sinners." " Through the obedience of the one shall the many 
be made righteous." According to these scriptures, the first 
Adam involved his race in sin and death, guilt and con- 
demnation, by disobedience; the second Adam, by his obe- 
dience — atonement — justified the race from the guilt and 
condemnation of the original Adamic sin and secured its 
restoration to life. As in Adam " all sinned," so in Christ 
all were " justified." "As in Adam all die, so in Christ 
shall all be made alive." (1 Cor. 15: 22.) The human 
race cannot sin, individually, as a race, after the manner 
of Adam. 

This is the nature and scope of Christ's racial atonement, 
first expressed by John the Baptist (John 1: 29) when he 
said: " Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin 
of the world" — the Adamic or racial sin. Christ died for 
sin in its totality, inherent and actual, qualitatively and 
quantitatively, imputatively and personally, as embraced 
in racial guilt and condemnation. It was provisional for 
the race, but conditional in application to the individual 
upon the ground of its ratification by faith; while its re- 
jection, through unbelief, would be a ratification of Adam's 
sin and condemnation, through individual transgression 
after the manner of Adam. Up to the point of accounta- 
bility Christ's racial atonement covers the race; and all 
who die within that period are saved, without faith or 
work, by the blood of Christ from the Adamic taint and 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 55 

guilt because Jesus "died for all." The infant and the 
idiot are " by nature children of wrath, even as the rest " 
(Eph. 2: 3), and, like David, "brought forth in iniquity" 
and "conceived in sin" by his mother (Ps. 51: 5; Ps. 58: 
3). Native depravity is demonstrable in every human be- 
ing by the fact that, on reaching the years of accountability, 
all men, without exception, ratify Adam's guilt by personal 
transgression. " The wicked are estranged from the womb: 
they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies," and 
must be saved, if saved at all, by ratifying Christ's atone- 
ment through personal faith in Christ, whose atonement 
covers the Adamic sin, and by consequence covers our per- 
sonal sins which essentially spring from Adamic depravity. 
The Scriptures know nothing of atonement for the indi- 
vidual, or for personal sins, except as contemplated in and 
growing out of the racial atonement for "all men," and 
therefore all infants. There is no such scriptural concep- 
tion as individual atonement made for each man born pure 
and without sin up to the years of accountability, in view 
of possible transgression afterwards! This seems to be the 
stupendous absurdity of my Brother Smith and of his peo- 
ple. 

There is not one of Adam's race but needs to be saved — 
infant and adult. " There is none righteous, no, not one " 
(Rom. 3: 10-18) — not one apart from and independent of 
the blood of Christ and the saving grace of God. " Every 
one " must be " born anew " to " see the kingdom of God." 
How the dying infant is cleansed of depravity or renewed 
with eternal life is not revealed; but we know that it is cov- 
ered by the blood of Christ's racial atonement, and must 
pass through some process of regeneration into the pres- 
ence of the Father, when it sees Jesus in the heavenly king- 
dom. 

My proposition that " the spiritual children of Abra- 
ham, subject to baptism, are all the children of God by 
faith in Christ, ' according to promise,' " Brother Smith as- 
sails by the counter proposition: "Abraham has no spiritual 
children subject to baptism; they are not the spiritual 
children of Abraham until after baptism." Let us see. 



56 Why the Baptist Name. 

Paul says (Rom. 4: 13-16): "For not through the law was 
the promise to Abraham or to his seed, that he should be 
heir of the world, but through the righteousness of faith. 
. . . For this cause it is of faith, that it may be according 
to grace; to the end that the promise may be sure to all 
the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that 
also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father 
of us all." It is clear here that the children of Abraham 
are the children of God by faith alone, through Christ, 
without any reference to baptism; but, according to the law 
of Christ, they are subject to baptism upon profession of 
that faith and as a declaration of that faith. 

But I am cited to Gal. 3: 26-29: "For Igar, by reason of 
what precedes, justification by faith] ye are all sons of 
God, through faith, in Christ Jesus. For Igar, by reason 
of what precedes, sonship through faith in Christ] as many 
of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ. . . . 
And if ye are Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, heirs 
according to promise." There is no contradiction between 
Rom. 4 and Gal. 3. Both teach that we become the sons 
of God, the children of Abraham, exclusively, through 
faith, in Christ Jesus. In both instances Paul was seeking 
to establish the great doctrine of justification by faith, 
of salvation by grace, contrary to the ritualism of the 
Jews; and as in Rom. 6: 1-5, so here, in conflict with 
heresy, he seeks to awaken those affected, or likely to be 
affected, by illustrating and emphasizing the spiritual facts 
of his doctrine through the objective symbolism of their 
baptism, in which they had professionally and publicly put 
on Christ before the world and so signified their union with 
Christ in their freedom from the law and in their death 
to sin. In like manner I often refer Baptists to their bap- 
tism and to the great truths it symbolizes and teaches, and 
to the solemn obligations it imposes upon those who have 
professed faith in Christ and so put him on in baptism. 

Baptized into Christ, putting on Christ in baptism, are 
symbolic expressions of the effect of faith which secures 
our union with Christ and clothes us with his righteous- 
ness, the badge of our justification. We are not spiritually 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 57 

plunged into Christ by being physically dipped into water; 
we are not spiritually clothed with Christ by being physic- 
ally wrapped in water; but through faith which secures 
these blessings, through our Christ, we are publicly and 
professionally baptized into Christ and so put him on sym- 
bolically — just as we are baptized in, or into, the name 
of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. "We 
are not spiritually dipped into the name of the Trinity by 
being plunged into water — physically. 

Against my statement that " those dying in infancy 
and irresponsibility are saved by the blood of the cove- 
nant," my opponent assumes that such are " safe without 
the blood of Christ;" that " they have never been lost " and 
"need no salvation from sin;" that Jesus shed his blood 
for the remission of sins " (Matt. 26: 28), and that " infants 
and the irresponsible do not need the atonement." This is 
pure Pelagian heresy, and I have already answered this in- 
dividualistic theory of an atonement made for each of the 
race born sinless and in view of probable sins committed 
after reaching accountability, and not for the race already 
born in sin and lost " by nature " under the guilt and con- 
demnation of original transgression and depravity. Neither 
Scripture nor reason knows anything of a Pelagian atone- 
ment; nor do they know of any being born in Adam's like- 
ness free from the Adamic depravity and death and from 
racial guilt and condemnation. The very fact that the in- 
fant and irresponsible, without actual transgression, " die " 
in Adam is proof that they " sinned " in Adam, and so 
needed the racial atonement of Christ, who " died for all," 
because "all died" (2 Cor. 5: 14), and whose blood pro- 
visionally covered all sin, inherent and actual, present, 
past, and future. This Pelagian theory of atonement could 
have no application to any of the race before Christ; and 
it has no application to the inward states of sin at all. 

Christ's atonement treats sin as racial and radical 
through Adam as the natural head of the race; and so it 
treats of sin's removal as racial and radical through the 
second Adam as the spiritual Head of the race. Through 
this atonement all sin is remitted (1) provisionally to the 



58 Why the Baptist Name. 

race until accountability is reached; (2) conditionally to 
the individual, at or after accountability, upon the ground 
of faith in Jesus Christ. 

Brother Smith modifies my statement that " baptism 
is a retrospective gospel ordinance; " and so construes the 
statement that baptism is retrospective only as it " points 
back to the time we were baptized into the benefits of the 
death or blood of Christ." (Rom. 6: 3.) He says that 1 
would " have people saved apart from the death of Christ 
by having them saved before baptism." No, Brother Smith, 
the symbolism of baptism is abhorrent to the idea of bury- 
ing " the old man," physically in water, to kill him spir- 
itually and so make him alive to Christ. Baptists do not 
hold that we are saved apart from the death of Christ, 
but that we are united with Christ, in his death, burial, 
and resurrection, through faith, the only medium and bond 
of union by which the soul can be made spiritually one 
with Christ; and we hold, according to scriptural symbol- 
ism, that baptism is the " likeness " by which that union 
is most vividly and beautifully set forth. 

In my tract I alluded to Mark 16: 16, " He that be- 
lieveth and is baptized," as the only law of Christ on the 
subject of " believers' baptism," without any purpose what- 
ever of leaving off the latter part of the sentence, " shall be 
saved." I accept the whole text with all my heart; but I 
do not agree with my Brother Smith that, in this text, 
baptism, like faith, is a condition of salvation. This is 
clear, as shown in the last member of the sentence, where 
Christ lays the stress, or emphasis, on faith, when he says: 
" But he that believeth not shall be condemned." Belief is 
the ground of salvation, just as unbelief is the ground of 
damnation; and it is impossible, by a new law, to make 
baptism a joint essential with faith to salvation. All es- 
sentials to salvation are spiritual, absolute, and indispensa- 
ble, always and everywhere the same; and God has never 
created an arbitrary or capricious essential to the salva- 
tion of the soul. Given the hearing of the gospel, in the 
nature of things, the sinner is only required to repent and 
believe in order to be saved; and we have abundant Scrip- 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 59 

ture to prove that this is true. To the worst of sinners 
Jesus said: "Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace" 
(Luke 7: 50); and if faith alone can save, and has saved, 
baptism is not a joint essential to the salvation of the soul 
by a new and arbitrary condition. 

Baptism is distinctly associated with faith as a declara- 
tive symbol of what faith secures — the blessings of salva- 
tion; but God has not put the content of salvation in a 
priestly hand and a body of water into which we must be 
physically plunged, or through which faith must wade, in 
order to be saved, and, without which, repentance and 
faith must leave us damned. There are conditions, as 
those which environed the thief on the cross, in which re- 
pentance and faith could not save us, if baptism is essential 
to salvation. The relation of baptism to faith as a de- 
clarative symbol is the same as that of confession to faith 
as another outward expression of salvation. Rom. 10: 9, 
10: "For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; 
and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." 
Here confession with the mouth is apparently made the 
joint condition of salvation, and this is before baptism; 
so that we have two salvations: (1) by mouth and (2) by 
water. The truth is that we are saved when we believe 
with the heart unto " righteousness," as Josephus said of 
John's theology. As certain as salvation by grace and 
justification by faith are true, when the heart reaches 
righteousness through faith in Christ, the soul is saved — 
regenerated and forgiven; and confession, baptism, and 
good works are but the external expression, sign, and evi- 
dence of the fact. My compliments to Brother Willmarth 
in these words: "By grace have ye been saved through 
faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 
not of works [nor water], that no man should glory." 
(Eph. 2: 8, 9.) 

Brother Smith severely criticizes my statement: "The 
babe is never washed until he is born; so of the child born 
of God and baptized in water." He seems to take to him- 
self my thrust at pedobaptism, which baptizes or washes 
children before they are born of God; and so he assumes 



60 Why the Baptist Name. 

the position that, while the natural babe is never washed 
until born, nevertheless " in the birth of the spiritual babe 
there is a washing, and that washing is in the water of 
baptism" In other words, the washing of a spiritual babe 
is synchronous, if not synonomous, with his birth in bap- 
tism. But this is contrary to the symbolism of baptism, 
which is a figure of both birth and washing, as well as of 
death, burial, and resurrection; and if baptism represents 
these things figuratively, it cannot produce them literally, 
nor be the medium through which they are produced. 
Baptism shows forth the fact of spiritual birth and wash- 
ing, of spiritual death, burial, and resurrection, after the 
fact and not in order to the fact, nor in the fact, much 
less before the fact. Baptism is a " likeness " of these 
things, but not a " medium " of these things. If so, you 
enwomb the unrenewed sinner in water in order to the new 
birth; embathe the vile sinner in water to cleanse him from 
sin; entomb the living sinner in water to kill him to sin 
and raise him to life. 

But I am cited to Ephesians (5: 25, 26) : " Husbands, love 
your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave 
himself up for it; that he might sanctify it, having cleansed 
it by the washing of water with the word." This text is 
one of the instances of Scripture language in which the 
whole solemn transaction of the text is designated by the 
external symbol. " Having cleansed it [the church] by the 
washing of water " — the phrase, " washing of water," which 
is baptism, is the symbol of regeneration effected by the 
Holy Spirit with the Word through faith in Christ; and 
this external symbol, precedent in the expression, is men- 
tioned for the whole of the complex action of saving the 
church by regeneration or renewing of the Holy Spirit — 
one and the same thing. 

So Paul might have referred to the sanctification of the 
church in terms of the Lord's Supper, which symbolizes 
growth in the eating of the flesh and drinking of the 
blood of Christ; for Christ who said, "Except one be born 
of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of 
God," also said: "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 61 

man and drink his blood, ye have not life in you." Christ 
used the expression, " born of water;" Ananias said to 
Saul, " Wash away thy sins." These expressions are either 
literal or figurative; if literal, then baptism and regenera- 
tion are one and the same thing and synonymous with the 
renewing of the Holy Spirit. Not only so, but baptism ac- 
tually washes away sin; and if so, then the sacramental effi- 
cacy of baptism is true, and we must admit the doctrine of 
baptismal remission and regeneration. 

But Brother Smith would repudiate all this, and hold 
that faith perfected through obedience in baptism secures 
remission and regeneration and all the blessings of salva- 
tion. The Scriptures, however, know nothing of this mere- 
ly discursive faith perfected and made effective by obe- 
dience in baptism in order to salvation. Faith developed 
by the Spirit through the Word in the acceptance of Christ 
for salvation is already perfect for this purpose; and the 
Scriptures abundantly show that faith alone saves, has 
saved, and is all-sufficient to save. " Thy faith hath saved 
thee; go in peace." (Luke 7: 50.) "Thy faith hath made 
thee whole." (Matt. 9: 22.) " Son, thy sins are forgiven" 
— when He "saw their faith." (Matt. 9: 2.) Saving faith 
does obey in baptism; but it obeys in order to declare, but 
not produce, salvation in accordance with the symbolic pur- 
pose of baptism. The two great ordinances of Christ are not 
saviors, but symbols, teachers, and bonds of obligation; nor 
are they the mediums of saving and sanctifying grace, even 
through faith, which is but a modified form of ritualism 
or sacramentalism. As early as the first half of the second 
century, according to the lately discovered " Teaching of 
the Twelve Apostles," they were called " symbols." This 
was before ritualism and sacramentalism had usurped the 
spiritual purity and simplicity of the gospel, and before 
men had discovered a nigh-cut to heaven, and all the way 
by water. Baptists alone have followed the spiritual theory 
of redemption. They baptize people because they are Chris- 
tians; Campbellites baptize sinners in order to make them 
Christians; and in so doing, the latter follow the discursive 
belief of the Pelagians, on the one hand, and a modified 



62 Why the Baptist Name. 

form of ritualism and sacramentalism, after Rome, on the 
other. They do not teach the efficacy of water to save in 
itself; but they do teach that water is the medium through 
which faith saves, which is but another form of baptismal 
remission or regeneration. 



Mr. Smith's Second Review. 

Dr. Lofton expresses surprise at my inability to see why 
" believers' baptism as opposed to infant baptism " and 
" believers' baptism as opposed to baptismal remission or 
regeneration " should be called " Baptist principles." 
Granting for argument's sake that John was the first to 
" preach repentance toward God and faith in the Christ to 
come," I am still unable to understand how these could be 
termed " Baptist principles " unless it could be shown that 
John originated the doctrine of repentance and faith. And 
even then baptism would have had to precede and not fol- 
low faith and repentance to make them " Baptist " prin- 
ciples, since, as the Doctor asserts, " Baptist " is from 
baptism. The " Baptist " part of his name was derived, not 
from either repentance or faith, but from the practice of 
baptizing people; hence the "two great fundamental prin- 
ciples " of repentance and faith can have nothing whatever 
to do with the name " Baptist." Brother Lofton has com- 
mitted tha blunder of taking the name " Baptist " from its 
scriptural meaning — namely, one who baptizes — and apply- 
ing it to a religious denomination, and he can never suc- 
cessfully defend this practice. 

I felt certain that my friend, Brother Lofton, would 
find great difficulty in trying to sustain the position that 
" repentance and faith are the only credentials by which 
to enter the covenant of grace and the kingdom of heaven;" 
and his lengthy and labored effort has verified my proph- 
ecy, while at the same time involving the Doctor in greater 
trouble than I anticipated. In offering my objection to his 
theory I referred the reader to the language of Christ, 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 63 

" Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot 
enter into the kingdom of God" (John 3: 5), as proof that 
baptism was to be numbered among the " credentials " by 
which one enters the kingdom or covenant of grace. It 
will be observed that Dr. Lofton does not deny that water 
here means baptism; but in order to save his theory, he 
adds another birth. He talks as fluently about " the water 
birth " and " the Spirit birth " as if this was the language 
of Jesus himself. Christ teaches that by one birth we en- 
ter into the one kingdom, but my friend's theory makes 
out two births, and has a " visible " and an " invisible " 
-entrance into the kingdom! Now there is not one word 
of all this mysticism in the language of the Son of God 
addressed to Nicodemus, but a simple figure expressive of 
the transition from one state to another, which is expressed 
without the figure of a birth as follows: " He that believeth 
and is baptized shall be saved." (Mark 16: 16.) The 
agencies employed in this transition are " water and Spirit," 
which means nothing more nor less than that through the 
words of the Spirit one is made a believer in Christ, and 
by water he is baptized into him. A birth simply trans- 
lates from one state into another. In the kingdom of 
Satan men are the children of the devil, and in the king- 
dom of grace they are the children of God. Now, if we 
can ascertain what people did in becoming the children of 
God, we know that constituted the birth, because they 
could not become God's children without being spiritually 
born. On the day of Pentecost those who had crucified 
Christ, and who were not the children of God, were told 
to " know assuredly," or believe with all their heart, that 
Jesus was the Christ, to repent of their sins, and to be 
baptized for the remission of their sins. They did these 
things, and the record says that " they took their food 
with gladness and singleness of heart, praising God, and 
having favor with all the people," and that "the Lord added 
to them day by day those that were saved." (Acts 2: 46, 
47.) We know they had been born anew, for God would 
not have added to them those that were being saved day 
by day if they were not in the kingdom; hence faith in the 



64 Why the Baptist Name. 

Lord Jesus Christ, repentance of sin, and baptism into him 
constitute the " new birth." Dr. Lofton knows that the 
same word in the original, gennao, is translated both 
"born" and "begotten;" hence, when James (1: 18) says, 
" Of his own will begat he us [" brought us forth," A. R. 
V.] with the word of truth," that the entire process of this 
spiritual change called " born anew " is begun, carried on, 
and consummated by the word of God. The expression, 
"So is every one born of the Spirit" (John 3: 8), can be 
correctly read, " begotten of the Spirit," for, as stated, there 
is only one word in the original for both " born " and " begot- 
ten." Furthermore, the expression, " So is every one that 
is born of the Spirit," does not refer to the process of the 
birth or transition, but to the thing which is " born " or 
that passes through this change — viz., the spiritual or in- 
ner man in contradistinction to the fleshly or outer man. 
The illustration was given Nicodemus to show him that it 
was not the flesh or body of man that must be born, but 
his spirit or soul. The very first passage my friend brings 
forward in his long dissertation on the " new birth " is 
ruinous to his cause. " But as many as received him, to 
them gave he the right to become children of God, even 
to them that believe on his name." Then they were not 
the children of God when they " believed on his name," as 
Dr. Lofton claims, but had the right or privilege to be- 
come God's children. This sounds the death knell of 
Brother Lofton's theory of " salvation by faith alone," but 
I am not responsible for his misfortune; it is his own pas- 
sage which has proven a boomerang to the " faith alone " 
theory. The remaining part of the verse offers no help to 
his cause, for when John wrote, " Which were born, not of 
blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, 
but of God," he referred to those who were " born of God " 
by exercising the right to become his children that had 
" believed on his name." Something was done besides be- 
lieving on his name, and that was being baptized. The 
right or privilege of those who believe on his name, of 
becoming the children of God, still exists, and can be ex- 
ercised by being baptized into Christ. (Gal. 3: 27.) But 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 65 

before dismissing the subject upon which our brother has 
written at length, I desire to offer the following: Whatever 
influence the Spirit exerts in the process of the new birth 
is done through the Spirit's voice; and as the Scriptures 
know nothing of the Spirit's voice except in the words 
which the Spirit spoke and which have been recorded, this 
fact removes all the mystery which many religious 
teachers, including Dr. Lofton, have thrown around the 
subject. Dr. Lofton has said it is the Spirit's voice we hear 
in being born again, and this simplifies the matter despite 
his effort to mystify. To sum up the matter, he who. be- 
lieves with all of his heart that Jesus is the Christ, upon 
the testimony of God's word (John 20: 30, 31; Acts 15: 7; 
Rom. 10: 17), repents of his sins (2 Cor. 7: 10), and is 
baptized into Christ (Gal. 3: 27), has been "born again." 

Brother Lofton says that I " assume that the human race 
has no sin to atone for until it sins as Adam did in the 
transgression of law; that infants and idiots are not born 
in sin or under law; and that there is no such thing as 
Adamic ' or ' inherited sin.' " Well, I thought I submitted 
Bible proof to sustain this position when the definition of 
sin was given in the very words of the Bible, but I will 
enlarge upon it by additional proof. " Every one that do- 
eth sin doeth also lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness." 
(1 John 3: 4.) Webster says "lawlessness" means "the 
quality or state of being lawless; disorder." He says " law- 
less " means " not subject to, or unrestrained by, the law of 
morality or society; as, lawless men or behavior." I con- 
fess my inability to see how, in the light of these defini- 
tions of sin, an infant or an idiot can be classed as 
sinners. No wonder my friend says: "How the dying in- 
fant is cleansed of depravity or renewed with eternal life 
is not revealed." God failed to reveal anything anywhere 
in the Bible concerning the depravity of infants, and this 
accounts for the absence of any revelation as to " how the 
dying infant is cleansed of depravity." 

Dr. Lofton speaks of " inherited sin," as if sin, which is 
a moral disease, could be transmitted through a material 
body like smallpox or some other physical disease! All 
5 



66 Why the Baptist Name. 

we inherit from Adam is a body of flesh and Mood,. God 
formed his body in one way and put into it a spirit or 
soul; and he formed ours in another way and put into 
them spirits or souls which were as pure and free from 
sin as was Adam's in the garden of Eden. His soul be- 
came polluted by committing sin, and that is the only way 
by which ours become polluted. " Furthermore, we had the 
fathers [plural] of our flesh to chasten us, and we gave 
them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection 
unto the Father [singular] of spirits, and live? " (Heb. 
12: 9.) "Thus sayeth Jehovah, who stretcheth forth the 
heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and form- 
eth the spirit of man within him." (Zech. 12: 1.) Would 
God form an unclean and depraved spirit within us? This 
is what the doctrine of infant depravity declares, and there 
is no escape from the charge. My brother quotes in proof 
of his assertion that infants have inherited sin: "Behold 
the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." 
(John 1: 29.) The emphasis in this passage is not upon 
a special sin handed down from Adam to all his posterity 
through a law of inheritance, but upon the words " taketh 
away." " The blood of bulls and goats " could not take 
aivay sins (Heb. 10: 4), for there was "a remembrance of 
sins every year" (Heb. 10: 3). None of the passages my 
friend cites in his long and labored effort on this point 
sustain him. But as this is one of the most vital issues in 
this controversy, I shall, in my feeble way, further dis- 
prove the Doctor's false theory. He says: "The Scriptures 
(Rom. 5: 12-19) emphatically teach that Adam constituted 
his posterity ' sinners,' and that through him sin, death, 
and condemnation ' passed upon all men.' " His interpre- 
tation of these scriptures is the very taproot of " infant 
baptism," against which he so stoutly contends, for that 
unscriptural practice grew out of the doctrine of " in- 
herited sin " or " infant depravity." This heresy crept 
into the church long after the last apostle had died; and 
as the Scriptures taught baptism " for the remission of 
sins," a cleansing virtue was attributed to baptism which 
God never intended. One error begot another. The theory 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 67 

was : " The infant has sin, and the water of baptism washes 
away sin; therefore, lest the infant die in its sin, it should 
be baptized." 

Let us now briefly examine the Doctor's proof texts. 
" Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, 
and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, 
for that all sinned." (Rom. 5: 12.) That physical or ma- 
terial death is here said to be entailed upon Adam's pos- 
terity because of his sin is made clear in the immediate 
context (verse 14), which says: "Nevertheless death 
reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not 
sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is 
a figure of him that was to come." The one who was to 
come was the Christ, and Adam was a figure or type of him 
in only one aspect — viz., federal head. The first Adam was 
at the head of the fleshly race; while Christ, the second 
Adam, is at the head of the spiritual race. Hence, when it 
is said that in or through Adam " all sinned," it is to be 
understood that we sinned only in a representative sense 
through our federal head, in consequence of which there has 
been entailed upon us, not moral depravity, but a material 
death. " For if by the trespass of the one the many [all] died, 
much more did the grace of God, and the gift by the grace 
of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound unto the many [all]." 
(Verse 15.) So what we unconditionally lost in Adam 
the first, we unconditionally gain in Adam the second. 
While Adam's posterity are in no way responsible for his 
sin, they suffer the consequences of it in that they die. 
The penalty of death passed unto Adam's race because they 
sinned, and not because they were made sinners, represent- 
atively through him as the federal head. The fact of rep- 
resentation through a federal head is found in this pas- 
sage: "And, so to say, through Abraham even Levi, who 
receiveth tithes, hath paid tithes; for he was yet in the 
loins of his father, when Melchizedek met him." (Heb. 
7: 9, 10.) We sinned in Adam exactly upon the same prin- 
ciple that Levi paid tithes in Abraham. Did Levi actually 
and personally pay tithes through Abraham? Then neither 
did Adam's race actually and personally sin through him. 



68 Why the Baptist Name. 

Brother Lofton's argument is based upon the theory that 
" like begets like," and as Adam was a sinner, the children 
begotten by him must, therefore, be sinners also. Will my 
friend say that Adam or any other human being could be- 
get a soul? Can a soul be brought into existence through 
the medium of flesh and blood? Souls exist without bodies 
of flesh and blood, and this fact upsets the Doctor's theory. 
The body is only the tabernacle of the soul (2 Cor. 5: 1-4), 
and this is all we inherit from Adam. I deny the doctrine 
which asserts that " human nature is sinful " before man 
perverts his nature by committing sin. Adam did not have 
a single appetite, passion, or lust after the fall that he 
did not possess before. All of his natural appetites and 
lusts were God-given, and he had the perfect right to grat- 
ify these within the limits of God's law. Jesus Christ pos- 
sessed the same nature that Adam did, for it is said that 
he " was born of the seed of David according to the flesh." 
(Rom. 1: 3.) Again: "Wherefore it behooved him in all 
things to be made like unto his brethren, that he might 
become a merciful and faithful high priest in things per- 
taining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the 
people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, 
he is able to succor them that are tempted." (Heb. 2: 17, 
18.) It is also said that Christ " hath been in all points 
tempted like as we are." (Heb. 4: 15.) Unless the Son 
of God possessed our nature, with its passions, lusts, and 
appetites, how could it be possible for him to be " tempted 
in all points like as we are? " Dr. Lofton's theory of 
" native depravity " makes Christ a sinner. 

The Doctor's evidence of " native depravity " is an- 
nounced thus: "Native depravity is demonstrable in every 
human being by the fact that on reaching the years of ac- 
countability, all men, without exception, ratify Adam's 
guilt by personal transgression." If the fact that Adam's 
posterity " on reaching the years of accountability " sin is 
proof of " inherited " sin, does not the fact that Adam 
sinned prove also that he inherited sin or a sinful nature? 
If so, from whom did he inherit this sin or sinful nature? 









Lofton-Smith Discussion. 69 

He is said to be the Son of God (Luke 3: 38) ; but surely 
he did not get it from his Father. 

Does it not stand to reason that if Satan could lead 
Adam to sin within his perfect environment, walking with 
God and talking with him face to face, that he could succeed 
in leading Adam's posterity into sin, who are not so favor- 
ably environed as was he? Is a single one of Adam's pos- 
terity stronger than Adam himself was in the garden? It 
is true that Paul says in Eph. 2: 3 that he and the Ephe- 
sians, with all other sinners before conversion, " were by 
nature children of wrath " — that is, subject to the wrath 
of God. But to what does the word " nature " in this pas- 
sage refer? Does it refer to " native sin " or " depravity? " 
I affirm that it does not, and no less a personage than the 
learned Adam Clarke sustains me in this affirmation. In 
commenting on this passage he gives different meanings of 
the word " nature," among which is this, " also the general 
sense and practice of mankind," illustrated by the passage 
which says: " Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if 
a man have long hair," etc.? (1 Cor. 11: 14.) In his com- 
ment on Gal. 2: 15, while holding with Brother Lofton on 
the doctrine of "natural corruption," he has this to say: 
" Now, though the doctrine be true, and the state of man 
and universal experience confirm it, yet it can neither be 
supported from this place, nor even from Eph. 2: 3." So 
the Ephesians were children of wrath by the practice of 
sin, and not because of " native depravity," which the con- 
text itself abundantly proves. The Doctor flies to Ps. 51: 
5 in search of support for his " native depravity," but it 
fails him in his hour of need. " Behold, I was brought 
forth in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." 
Some sin is here referred to, but as to what kind of sin it 
was is the merest supposition. The sin, whatever it was, 
is affirmed of David's mother and not of David himself. 
The passage does not say that the thing brought forth was 
a sinner or even sinful; and, therefore, my friend had to 
read it into the text. He quotes : " The wicked are es- 
tranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they 
are born, speaking lies." The reader will, no doubt, be 



70 Why the Baptist Name. 

led to the conclusion that infants are a very precocious set 
of youngsters to be going " astray as soon as they are born," 
and to be telling lies so early! What does the passage 
mean? It can only mean that man very early in life be- 
gins the practice of sin, and has no reference whatever to 
the Doctor's " native depravity." Therefore, with the over- 
whelming proof of God's word that we are not born sin- 
ners, but become such by committing sin, I still insist that 
infants and idiots are safe and need not the atoning blood. 
His blood is an atonement " for sin," and they have no sin 
for which to atone. He said: " Suffer the little children, 
and forbid them not, to come to me: for to such belongeth 
the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 19: 14.) 

Dr. Lofton insists that " the children of Abraham are the 
children of God by faith alone, through Christ, without any 
reference to baptism." There is one passage which so clear- 
ly refutes his position that I shall deem it entirely suffi- 
cient without additional proof. " For ye are all sons of 
God, through faith, in Christ Jesus." Now note: (1) They 
were sons of God through faith, and (2) this sonship was 
" in Christ Jesus," not out of him. Hence they were not 
sons of God through faith until their faith brought them 
into Christ. How and when did their faith bring them 
into Christ? The very next verse explains the matter, and 
it is written for this very purpose: "For as many of you 
as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ." (Gal. 3: 
26, 27.) This settles all the Doctor says relative to Abra- 
ham's spiritual children and " salvation by faith alone." 
I believe we are saved by faith, when that faith leads us 
to put Christ on in baptism, which is his own appointed 
way to save us from past sins. 

Brother Lofton is wasting his time, in so far as the im- 
partial and unprejudiced reader is concerned, in talking 
about the " objective symbolism of baptism." Faith is as 
much dependent upon human agency as is baptism, for it 
is written: "How then shall they call on him in whom 
they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him 
whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear with- 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 71 

out a preacher?" (Rom. 10: 14.) The Lord chose to save 
people by "the foolishness of preaching." (1 Cor. 1: 21.) 
The Doctor refers to the thief on the cross as an evidence 
that men are saved without baptism. Does he not know 
that the thief was in his grave forty-three days and nights 
before Christ gave the commission in which he said: "He 
that believeth and is baptized shall be saved? " (Mark 16: 
1G.) This answers all the other cases he brings up where 
Christ said, " Thy faith hath made thee whole," or, " Thy 
sins are forgiven thee." This was during his personal 
ministry, and those whom he forgave were Jews who were 
at that time the covenanted children of God. But he seems 
to think that because Christ did not say, " He that be- 
lieveth not and is not baptized shall be condemned," that, 
therefore, baptism could not have been one of the condi- 
tions of salvation. He fails to see that the commission con- 
tains the condition of damnation as well as the conditions 
of salvation. It stands thus: 

Conditions of Salvation: Condition of Damnation: 

Faith and Baptism, i | Disbelief. 

It would have been meaningless, therefore, for Christ to 
have said, " He that believeth not and is not baptized shall be 
damned," for the simple reason that one who is an unbeliever 
cannot be baptized. It would be just as wise to say: "He 
that eats and digests his food shall live; but he that eats 
not and digests not his food shall die." How could one 
digest food without having eaten? Just so, how could one 
be baptized without first believing? Brother Lofton says: 
" I accept the whole text with all my heart; but I do not 
agree with Brother Smith that, in this text, baptism, like 
faith, is a condition of salvation." I am sorry indeed that 
Brother Lofton and I do not agree on this matter and all 
other things pertaining to our holy religion. Why we fail 
to agree cannot be attributed to the word of God, which was 
given to teach us the way of life, and concerning which 
the prophet said : " The wayfaring men, yea fools, shall 
not err therein." (Isa. 35: 8.) If the commission does not 



?2 Why the Baptist Name. 

mean what it says in placing the promise " shall be saved " 
after baptism, then I confess that it would be difficult for 
me to understand anything God has said. It does seem 
to me that Brother Lofton should find some mention in 
the New Testament, somewhere, in connection with baptism, 
of what he has to say about its " symbolic " and " declara- 
tive " import. He is put to the necessity of assuming and sup- 
posing so much about baptism. Note the following: "Hav- 
ing cleansed it [the church] by the washing of water " — the 
phrase, " washing of water," which is baptism, is the sym- 
bol of regeneration effected by the Holy Spirit with the 
word, through faith in Christ." Unless God has said that 
baptism " is the symbol of regeneration effected by the 
Holy Spirit with the word," this fact may account for Dr. 
Lofton and me not agreeing on the design of this ordi- 
nance. 

Dr. Lofton says: " Campbellites baptize sinners in order 
to make them Christians." This misrepresentation is 
preached from every Baptist pulpit and repeated at the 
fireside of the members of Baptist churches, as well as other 
pulpits and firesides, until thousands of people believe it is 
true. Now, Doctor, when I was baptized I believed with 
all my heart in Jesus Christ, was deeply penitent over my 
sins, and loved Christ. I had resolved to quit sinning, but 
was yet in an unpardoned state. Is that the kind of sinner 
you mean when you say, " Campbellites baptize sinners in 
order to make them Christians?" If so, when you state 
this again, please say, " believing, penitent sinners," and 
the people will understand that we do not teach that bap- 
tism alone makes Christians. Before my baptism I was a 
Relieving penitent in a state of condemnation, and in this 
sense was a sinner, but not a sinning sinner. A foreigner 
may believe in and love this government and be willing 
and anxious to become an American, but is not an Amer- 
ican until his citizenship is changed by the oath of alle- 
giance. Baptism changed my citizenship and bestowed 
upon me the name " Christian," for I was baptized into 
Christ's name. 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 73 

Dr. Lofton's Second Reply. 

" Believers' baptism as opposed to infant baptism " and 
" as opposed to baptismal remission or regeneration " are 
" Baptist principles " because they have ever been held by 
Baptists without compromise with any false design of bap- 
tism; because these principles originated under the teach- 
ing, practice, and title of " the first Baptist preacher," as 
Alexander Campbell called him. John did not originate 
the doctrines of repentance and faith; but, under God, he 
did originate the preaching of repentance toward God and 
faith in Christ for the remission of sins as symbolized by 
baptism, and that, too, with the title of " the Baptist, ' 
which designated and signified his teaching and practice; 
and Baptists have followed John in this teaching and 
practice, and have so taken his name as a denominational 
differentiation from other people who have not followed 
his teaching and practice. The " Baptist part " of John's 
name is characteristic and definitive of his teaching and 
practice; and hence it denominationally adheres to those 
who follow that teaching and practice — those fundamental 
Baptist principles — against the world. 

My proposition still stands true that " repentance and 
faith are the only credentials by which to enter the cove- 
nant of grace and the kingdom of heaven, visibly sym- 
bolized by baptism;" and my opponent, in his rendition of 
John 3: 5, has not shown that baptism is also a credential, 
as he boasts. His theory of " one birth of water and 
Spirit " as figuratively expressive of transition from one 
state to another is wholly subversive of regeneration as 
produced by the Holy Spirit and signified by water. Birth 
means new life and relationship to God, invisibly created 
by the Spirit and visibly manifested by baptism ; and what 
the Spirit, with the word, does for the soul dead in sin, 
water displays with the body symbolically buried and risen 
to life. Word and water are not productive agencies, apart 
from the Spirit, through a discursive belief and repent- 
ance and a physical action in baptism, in securing trans- 
lation from a state of sin and death to life and from the 



74 Why the Baptist Name. 

kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of light. Repent- 
ance and faith are the element and evidence of the new 
birth operated by the Spirit through the word, and bap- 
tism is the sign and declaration of the fact; but it is the 
special product of the Holy Spirit, whose " voice " we hear 
in the word, but whose life we realize by the sovereign 
breath he " breathes " upon the soul thus renewed and 
cleansed as set forth by baptism. My opponent claims 
only to hear the " voice; " but the Spirit, in his production 
of the new birth, operates like the wind that breatheth 
where it will; and breath means life anew. Campbellism 
claims to hear and believe the " voice " only for change 
of life, and through water a change of state; but it knows 
absolutely nothing of the life-giving breath of the Spirit, 
through a divinely wrought faith, upon the soul washed 
in the blood and quickened from death unto life eternal. 
It knows nothing of the Spirit, for conversion, except as 
lodged in the word — abstractly and apart from the Spirit's 
operation. 

My brother denies in vain my use of John 1: 12: "But 
as many as received him, to them gave he the right [power] 
to become the children of God, even to them that believe 
on his name; which were born, not of blood, nor of the 
will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." His 
theory is that the right or power of becoming the children 
of God is vested in baptism; but like all the passages of 
Scripture, which positively ascribe salvation to grace 
through faith alone, they all imply to him baptismal sal- 
vation in spite of their construction and conditions to the 
contrary. The word of God is emphatic that sonship with 
him is through faith in Jesus Christ, and that baptism 
symbolizes the fact in so putting on Christ. (Gal. 3: 26, 
27.) The word "right" (exousian) here means power to 
do or not to do — that is, license, leave, right (Robinson's 
Greek Lexicon) ; and it implies the ability and liberty of 
those who received or believed Christ to become the chil- 
dren of God, without the slightest inference of baptism as 
a condition to such an end. Alas! for the reckless and un- 
scholarly interpretation of this text by my opponent, who 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 75 

should have known better. The right or the power to he- 
come the child of God is the prerogative of the believer, 
and not the baptizer; and the text absolutely excludes bap- 
tism as the condition of sonship or salvation. 

In the above passage John emphasizes the fact that those 
who had received Christ, believed on his name, and had 
received the right or power to become the children of 
God "were born" — already born — "of God;" and not born 
through human relationship or human will and not of their 
own fleshly volition — not born of word alone and not of 
water at all — but exclusively " of God," in the spiritual 
sense. In other words, there is no agency or instrumental- 
ity or medium of the new birth apart from the personal 
operation of God, who himself " cleanses the heart by 
faith" (Acts 15: 7-9) through the word; and who, in the 
case of Cornelius and his house, baptized them with the 
Holy Spirit in " witness " of the fact, baptizing them after- 
wards in water. 

I agree with my brother that sin is " lawlessness," not 
merely the outward "transgression of the law;" and the 
very essence of sin for which Christ died consists in its in- 
ward states, its inherency, its absolute hold on human na- 
ture. Sin is inherited as disease is inherited; and one of 
the striking features of heredity is our likeness to Adam 
and our parents in mental and moral, as well as physical, 
characteristics, from our very infancy. My opponent says, 
"All we inherit from Adam is a body of flesh and blood;" 
and he takes the absurd position that God never creates a 
pure soul and puts it into these " vile bodies," just as he 
did in the body of the sinless Adam at the beginning. If 
so, we have no racial or kindred relation with Adam nor 
with each other; for mere "flesh and blood," without kin- 
dred soul or spirit, do not constitute the same family, 
however similar; and if the Bible does anything, it treats 
us all as the race or family of Adam. Adam, or man, was 
the final creation of God "in his own image;" and in our 
fallen state God's word represents us as born in Adam's 
"likeness" (Gen. 5: 3), with God's likeness marred and 
ruined, and so to be restored through Jesus Christ, the 



76 



Why the Baptist Name. 



" express image of the Father." Since God rested from 
his work of creation, he has created nothing immediately, 
but only mediately through the laws of procreation or re- 
production. Thus he is " the Father of spirits " and " so 
forms the spirit in man" (Heb. 12: 9; Zech. 12: 1); and 
it was thus that Levi seminally existed in the loins of 
Abraham and paid tithes before his individualization by 
birth (Heb. 7: 9, 10). So the human race, body and 
soul, was germinally totalized in the loins of Adam be- 
fore individualization; and upon the principle of racial 
unity, through a natural head, so sinned and inherited the 
nature, character, and consequences — the death, depravity, 
guilt, and damnation — of the Adamic sin, according to race 
responsibility. 

In his wretched interpretation of Rom. 5: 12-21, my op- 
ponent takes the " federal head " theory that we " all 
sinned " in Adam " representatively," and that the only 
penalty of Adam's sin upon us is physical death! Upon 
the same fiction the atonement of Christ, so far as the 
Adamic sin is concerned, only furnishes a remedy for 
physical death! He forgets his theory that all we inherit 
from Adam is a body of " flesh and blood," in which, at 
birth, God immediately creates a sinless soul; and hence 
he overlooks his fallacy that under his representative the- 
ory of imputation such a being thus constituted could 
have no spiritual participation in Adam's sin, nor be held 
amenable to even the penalty of physical death. So con- 
stituted, we could neither sin nor die in Adam, for the soul 
is the essence of human being and the seat of all sin; and 
unless the soul is guilty, representatively or otherwise, of 
Adam's sin, there could be no penalty of death even upon 
the body, which is the temple of a purely created soul, as 
he holds, which had nothing to do with Adam's sin. His 
illustration of Levi paying tithes in the loins of Abraham, 
" representatively," implies the spiritual existence and 
agency of Levi as reckoned in the transaction thus semi- 
nally considered in the loins of his ancestor; and it thus 
honors Levi on account of his racial unity with his an- 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 77 

cestor; but it destroys my opponent's theory that all we 
inherit from Adam is a " body of flesh and blood." 

The simple meaning of Rom. 5: 12-21 is that " all sinned " 
in Adam by reason of our organic unity with the Natural 
Head of the race, when he sinned; and that death, spiritual 
and eternal, involving physical death as the consequence 
and evidence of the spiritual and eternal, was inflicted 
as the penalty of sin upon all the race thus condemned 
through the depravity and guilt of our original head. Paul 
says that " through one trespass the judgment came unto 
all men to condemnation " — " through one man's disobe- 
dience the many were made sinners;" and that " the law 
came in besides, that the trespass might abound." The 
legal phraseology of the passage implies a judicial penalty 
upon sin and " sinners " which, in the light of the Scrip- 
tures, cannot be covered by physical death; and the pro- 
visional atonement of Christ, the second Adam and spir- 
itual Head of the race, is represented as covering the " one 
trespass " which brought " condemnation unto all men," 
with " one act of righteousness," which brought " justifi- 
cation of life unto all men," so canceling the " disobe- 
dience " of one who " made the many sinners " by the " obe- 
dience " of One who " made the many righteous." These 
judicial and moral terms of condemnation and justifica- 
tion, of sin and righteousness, of law and grace, involve 
both soul and body, both time and eternity, as affected by 
sin and salvation; and if the theories of my opponent were 
true, the words of Paul at the close of the passage (verse 
21) would be absurd: "That as sin hath reigned unto 
death, even so might grace reign through righteousness 
unto eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." 

Besides all this, if the principle of imputation can be 
applied to physical death as the penalty of Adam's sin, why 
not to spiritual and eternal death? And if the atonement of 
Christ is essential to the cure of physical death as a pen- 
alty upon Adam's sin and Adam's race, why not the cure 
of spiritual and eternal death in the same sense and for 
the same reason? Why speak of the law making Adam's 
trespass abound, and of grace much more abounding, of 



78 Why the Baptist Name. 

sin reigning unto death, and of grace reigning through 
righteousness " unto eternal life," if eternal life is not here 
the antithesis of spiritual and eternal death? It is per- 
fectly clear that death in Rom. 5: 12-21 means not only 
physical death, but spiritual and eternal death as the pen- 
alty of Adam's sin on Adam's race. 

My brother asks if a soul can be brought into existence 
through the medium of flesh and blood, and then answers 
that souls exist without flesh and blood, that the body is 
only the tabernacle of the soul. I agree with Tertullian, 
Augustine, Luther, Shedd, Strong, and a host of the great- 
est of the theologians that the human race was immedi- 
ately created in Adam, and, as respects both body and soul, 
was propagated from him by natural generation, and thus 
mediately created by God, who established and upholds the 
laws of propagation. According to Gen. 1: 27, God created 
the species in Adam; and according to Gen. 1: 28, he fixed 
the method or law of increase and perpetuation through 
secondary agencies: " Be fruitful, and multiply, and re- 
plenish the earth;" just as he said (verse 22) to the an- 
imal creation: " Be fruitful, and multiply." Only once did 
God breathe into man's nostrils the breath of life and 
thus immediately create him a living soul; and it is dis- 
tinctly stated that the woman was made out of the man. 
(Gen. 2: 7, 22; 1 Cor. 11: 8; Gen. 4: 1; 5: 3; 46: 26; Acts 
17: 24-26; Heb. 7: 10; Ps. 139: 15, 16.) Universal experi- 
ence and observation testify that not only the physical, 
but mental and spiritual, characteristics of families and 
races — specially the evil moral tendencies and dispositions 
which all men possess from their birth — are proof of the 
fact that we derive our being, both soul and body, from our 
ancestry. I have not said that our natural appetites and 
passions, possessed by us and Adam alike — by even Christ 
himself — were evidences of depravity; but their evil in- 
dulgence on our part, and from our very birth, is the evi- 
dence of our ancestral depravity. My proposition is true 
" that native depravity is demonstrable in every human 
being because, on reaching the years of accountability, all 
men, without exception, ratify Adam's guilt by personal 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 79 

transgression;" but this proposition has no application to 
Adam himself, since he was created sinless; and whatever 
ability or aptitude he had to sin, through temptation, he 
did not inherit a sinful nature, nor any tendency to sin, 
as his race does. 

Of course it is reasonable that if Satan could tempt 
Adam, with his favorable environment, to sin, he can lead 
Adam's posterity, with a less favorable environment, 
astray; but this less favorable environment originates in 
the depraved nature and condition of Adam's posterity. 
We " are by nature the children of wrath " — like David, 
" brought forth in iniquity " and in sin conceived by our 
mothers. " The wicked are estranged from the womb," 
and " go astray as soon as born, speaking lies." The 
puerile interpretation of these passages by my opponent 
in defense of his erroneous theories is simply amazing. 
It is almost the universal testimony of scholarship that 
" original sin " is comprehended by the word " nature," 
which subjects the "children" of Adam to the "wrath" 
of God, and on account of which, according to God's law, 
" all the world may oe Drought under the judgment of 
God" (Rom. 3: 19, 20.) David, in his heart-rending con- 
fession of sin, ascribes the source of his iniquity to the 
depravity of his conception and birth through the very 
nature of his paternity; and if this was not his meaning, 
why mention his conception and birth at all, and thus 
involve his mother by alluding to some sin of hers at the 
time of his birth, which could have had no effect whatever 
upon the commission of his own sin? David was right as 
to himself and to the wicked who are " estranged " from 
God, "from the womb," born "estranged;" and it is true 
that about the first sin committed, in infancy or child- 
hood, is " speaking lies." To be sure, the ideal character, 
but not the nature, of little children properly trained, con- 
stitutes the model of Christian life and character in child- 
like gentility, docility, humility, and the like (Matt. 18: 3; 
19: 14); and "unto such" — such as these in character — 
"belongeth the kingdom of heaven;" but it cannot be 
shown that Jesus meant that children are members ot the 



80 Why the Baptist Name. 

kingdom of God until they "come" to him, or are "born 
anew;" for, "Except one be born anew, he cannot see the 
kingdom of God." (John 3: 3.) "All the world" is con- 
cluded under sin by reason of nature and practice; and not 
a child of Adam's race can see or enter the kingdom of God 
until " born anew." " That which is born of the flesh is 
flesh" — that is, born sinful; and nothing except "that 
which is born of the Spirit," which " is spirit," can " see 
the kingdom." 

The sophistical quibbling of my brother regarding the 
children of Abraham being the sons of God through faith 
in Christ scarcely deserves a reply. He does not answer 
my argument at all. I showed, conclusively, by the use 
of the Greek preposition gar, that we are the sons of 
God, through faith, in Christ Jesus, " for," or because of, 
the preceding reason — namely, that we are saved by grace 
and justified by faith; and by the same preposition (gar) 
Paul shows that we are baptized into Christ, and so put 
him on, " for," or because of, the preceding reason — name- 
ly, our sonship of God in Christ Jesus through faith (Gal. 
3: 26, 27), the ground of our baptism. 

I grant that faith is dependent upon human agency in 
the preaching of the gospel and in so hearing it as to be 
saved thereby; but while this agency is a means of "hear- 
ing" in order to faith, it is not a condition or essential 
to salvation in the believer as is faith; and while baptism 
is dependent upon human agency, like preaching, it teaches 
and symbolizes the gospel and the blessings of salvation 
without sacramentally or otherwise securing them or pro- 
ducing them. 

I grant that the thief died on the cross and was saved 
without baptism forty-odd days before the commission, 
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark 
16: 16); but suppose he had been crucified at Pentecost 
instead of the passover, had made the good confession 
under Peter's sermon, and could not have been baptized, 
what would have become of him? It is a perfectly sup- 
posable case, and, in some form, has happened perhaps 
millions of times since the day of Pentecost. Unquestion- 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 81 

ably Christ saved many others by faith alone during his 
ministry, as I have shown; and if faith alone could save, 
and did save, and was the sole condition of salvation be- 
fore Pentecost, how could baptism be added as an addi- 
tional condition when there are circumstances that make 
baptism impossible? My opponent insists that John's bap- 
tism was essential to the remission of sins, the same as 
Pentecost baptism; and yet we see Jesus himself baptized 
by John, and the disciples of Jesus baptizing with the 
same baptism, but we hear Jesus saying to penitent be- 
lievers: "Thy faith hath saved thee;" "Thy sins be for- 
given thee." My opponent says that those he forgave 
" during his personal ministry were Jews who were at that 
time the covenanted children of God;" but what about 
the Samaritan woman, the Syrophenician woman, and the 
centurion whose faith had no parallel in " all Israel? " 
So Cornelius and his house were saved by faith for the 
remission of sins after Pentecost, and, after the clearest 
evidence of their conversion and baptism of the Holy Spirit, 
were baptized in water. (Acts 10: 43-47.) The truth is 
that there never was a greater delusion foisted upon man 
than this doctrine of baptism essential to salvation. 

I hold, as I have said, that in Mark 16: 16, "He that be- 
lieveth and is baptized shall be saved," Jesus laid the 
emphasis upon faith in saying: " He that believeth not shall 
be condemned." If the great commission made baptism 
another condition or law of salvation in addition to faith, 
then, from the day of Pentecost, this twofold law of life 
eternal, if neglected or rejected, must be the twofold con- 
dition of damnation to those who hear the gospel. Hence- 
forth not simply faith, but faith and baptism, was the 
law of eternal life; and, at the judgment, the sinner would 
be charged not with unbelief alone, but unbelief and non- 
baptism. It is useless to say that the sinner is already 
damned in unbelief. That was so before Pentecost; but 
if a new condition of life has been added in order to life, 
that condition must count, neglected, in the sinner's 
damnation. 

I said that Baptists baptize people because they are 
Christians; that Campbellites baptize sinners to make 
6 



82 Why the Baptist Name. 

them Christians. My opponent calls this a misrepresenta- 
tion. He claims that when he was baptized he believed 
with all his heart in Jesus Christ, was deeply penitent 
over his sins, and loved Christ; and yet he says he was in 
an unpardoned state until baptism. If he had died in that 
state before reaching baptism, he would have been damned; 
and in this sense he confesses that he was a sinner — 
though not a " sinning sinner " — up to the point of bap- 
tism! God never put such a man in such a condition; but 
according to his own confession, he was an unpardoned 
and lost sinner, with all his claims, until baptism; and 
hence he did not become a Christian until he came out of 
the water. It is true, then, that Campbellites baptize sin- 
ners, whether " sinning sinners " or not, to make Chris- 
tians; and if such sinners were not baptized, they would 
be damned! Horrible! Such an experience of grace, as 
Brother Smith speaks of is impossible to the Campbellite 
theory; if he had it, he got it in spite of his theory; and 
he would have been saved if he had died before his bap- 
tism. Whenever faith and repentance reach love, we have 
"passed from death unto life;" and no man that ever 
loved Jesus was in a condemned or unpardoned state. 
Such teaching is absolutely abhorrent to the Scriptures 
and the plan of salvation. 

Naturalization is essential in human government to citi- 
zenship; but thousands live under the aegis of our consti- 
tution with all the privileges of citizenship except to vote 
and hold office. No foreigner found here is damned and 
executed because he has not taken out naturalization pa- 
pers; and he is here under the protection of this govern- 
ment. Baptism has no analogy to naturalization laws, ex- 
cept in relation to visible church membership or church 
privileges of voting and holding office; and unbaptized 
Christians may enjoy all the privileges of worship and 
spiritual fellowship of the body. Doubtless there have 
been millions in God's spiritual kingdom who for some 
cause were not baptized, but who enjoyed the privileges of 
the kingdom without being damned for not having regular 
baptismal relationship to the church or to the kingdom as 
organized. 

(See Mr. Smith's Review of the foregoing on page 276, ) 






Lofton-Smith Discussion. 83 



III. 

"BELIEVERS' BAPTISM AS OPPOSED TO 
BAPTISMAL REMISSION OR RE- 
GENERATION." 

Mr. Smith's First Review. 

The other great principle the author claims as a Baptist 
principle is: "Believers' baptism as opposed to baptismal 
remission or regeneration." 

Just why "believers' baptism as opposed to baptismal 
remission or regeneration" should be claimed exclusively 
by the Baptists has never yet been made clear. I and those 
with whom I am associated religiously repudiate what Dr. 
Lofton means by these terms with as much emphasis as the 
Baptists or any others. But I believe that the New Testa- 
ment teaches baptism as one of the conditions leading to 
the remission of past sins, and that it is associated with 
regeneration. " But when the kindness of God our Savior, 
and his love toward man, appeared, not by works done in 
righteousness, which we did ourselves, but according to 
his mercy he saved us, through the washing of regenera- 
tion and renewing of the Holy Spirit." (Tit. 3: 4, 5.) I 
need only to remind the Doctor that the " washing " (or, 
as the marginal reading has it, "laver") refers to bap- 
tism, as all biblical critics of any note hold. Alvah Hovey, 
one of the most learned Baptists this country ever pro- 
duced, says: "Paul had in mind baptism as representing 
and confessing the divine change called regeneration. 
Hence he teaches that men are saved by an outworking, 
obedient life, given and preserved by the Holy Spirit." 
(" Commentary on John," Appendix, page 422.) So say 
Wesley, Adam Clarke, MacKnight, Albert Barnes, and John 



84 Why the Baptist Name. 

Calvin in their comments on Tit. 3: 5. It is the same 
washing to which Ananias referred when he said to the 
penitent Saul: "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away 
thy sins, calling on his name." (Acts 22: 16.) 

"With reference to the relation of repentance and baptism, 
the Doctor says: " I suppose that not even the Campbellites 
would urge that baptism produced repentance." Having 
not the slightest knowledge of those whom the Doctor terms 
" Campbellites," I am wholly unable to say what they would 
or would not urge regarding anything in religion, politics, 
or commerce; but I can assure him that Christians most 
emphatically urge, believe, and teach that repentance pre- 
cedes baptism, and that without repentance there can be 
no scriptural baptism. But when he says, " They must 
agree here that John baptized his converts (eis metanoian) 
because of repentance," I will most emphatically inform 
him that we will do no such thing, for the simple reason 
that his position is not true. And now, as this is a most 
vital point in this investigation, I will let one who can 
do it so much better than I enlighten Dr. Lofton and all 
other Baptists on this passage: 

The rendering, " I baptize you unto repentance," implies 
that the baptism brought them to repentance. But such is 
not the fact in the case, for John required repentance as a 
prerequisite to baptism, and it is rather true that repent- 
ance brought them to baptism. If we adopt the rendering 
" into repentance," which is more literal, we are involved 
in a worse difficulty; for, if baptism did not bring the bap- 
tized unto repentance, it certainly did not bring them into 
it. Again, if, to avoid these two difficulties, we suppose the 
term " repentance " to be used by metonymy for the state 
of one who has repented, we encounter another difficulty 
not less serious; for the state of one who has repented is 
entered, not by being baptized, but by repenting. Finally, 
to assume, as some have done, that the preposition has the 
sense of because of, is to seek escape from a difficulty by 
attaching to a word a meaning which it never bears. The 
preposition (eis) is never used to express the idea that 
one thing is done because of another thing having been 
done. Neither, indeed, would it be true that John baptized 
persons because of their repentance; for, while it is true 
that repentance did precede the baptism, it was not because 
of this that they were baptized; but baptism had its own 
specific object, and because of this object it was adminis- 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 85 

tered. The phrase under consideration has another mean- 
ing which, though somewhat obscure as regards its connec- 
tion with the facts, is very naturally expressed by the words 
themselves. The preposition is often expressive of pur- 
pose, and the phrase may be properly rendered " in order to 
repentance." The baptism was not in order to the repent- 
ance of the party baptized. To so understand it would be 
to encounter the difficulty first mentioned above. But a 
baptism which required repentance as a prerequisite would 
have a tendency to cause those yet unbaptized to repent 
in order that they might receive the baptism and enjoy its 
blessings. Prizes in school are given in order to good be- 
havior and good recitations, although the good recitations 
and the good behavior must precede the reception of the 
prizes. Promotions in the army are in order to the en- 
couragement of obedience and valor, although these quali- 
ties of the good soldier must appear before promotion can 
take place. In the same way was John's baptism in order 
to repentance. The inestimable blessing of remission of 
sins being attached to baptism (see Mark 1:4; Luke 3: 3), 
the desire to obtain this blessing would prompt those yet 
unbaptized to repent, so that they might be baptized. The 
words declare simply that the general purpose of John's 
baptism was to bring the people to repentance. (J. W. 
MoGarvey, " Commentary on Matthew.") 

It is stated that the Greek preposition (eis) here trans- 
lated " for " or " unto " is never used to express the idea 
that one thing is done because of another thing having been 
done, which would have to be true in order to sustain the 
Baptist theory that baptism was administered " because 
of" repentance. Hence, unless Dr. Lofton can find a clear 
example in Holy Writ where eis is so used, his case is 
hopelessly gone. The following is the definition of eis as 
given by J. H. Thayer: "Eis, a preposition, governing the 
accusative and denoting entrance into, or direction and 
limit: into, to, towards, for, among:' ("New Testament 
Lexicon," page 183.) 

The Doctor says: "Baptism can produce neither repent- 
ance nor remission of sins, but baptism does certify or de- 
clare both." This is a surrender of the whole contention, 
after all of the Doctor's labored effort to discount baptism. 
Let me ask Dr. Lofton: To whom does baptism certify or 
declare the remission of sins? Most certainly not to God, 
nor yet can it be to the world, for the mere outward form 



86 Why the Baptist Name. 

of baptism would be no evidence to the world that the one 
immersed had received the remission of sins. It must, 
then, certify or declare the remission of sins to the one 
baptized. Hence those who repent have no certificate or 
declaration from God that their sins are forgiven until 
baptized. The Doctor has by this statement refuted his 
own position and established the fact that baptism is for 
(in the sense of in order to) the remission of past sins; for 
if baptism is a declaration of the remission of sins, we must 
come to baptism before God informs us that our sins are 
remitted. 

Now, in what does the certificate of remission of sins 
consist? The Doctor says it is baptism. What is there as- 
sociated with baptism, Doctor, that makes it the certificate 
of remission of sins? Is it not the promise at the end of 
baptism? "He that belie veth and is baptized shall be 
saved." (Mark 16: 15.) The reason the deeply penitent 
Saul of Tarsus, who was overwhelmed in grief, did not 
rejoice in the forgiveness of sins before his baptism was 
in the fact that he did not until baptism come to the 
promise. (See Acts 22: 16.) 

Dr. Lofton goes to Acts 2: 38, and seeks by this passage 
to establish his doctrine of remission before baptism, but it 
is one of the most dangerous passages to his cause that 
he could touch. Peter said: "Repent ye, and be baptized 
every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the re- 
mission of your sins {eis apfiesin hamartion]; and ye shall 
receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2: 38.) A clear 
understanding of this passage, derived from a fair and can- 
did interpretation of the apostle's words, based upon the 
exact meaning of the words he used, should, once for all, 
settle the question of the design of baptism in the economy 
of grace. Now I shall not introduce a single witness from 
those whom Dr. Lofton takes pleasure in calling " Camp- 
bellites," but will summon eminent Baptists and others. 
First, then, let us hear from two great Baptists on the 
meaning of Acts 2: 38: 

"Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in [or, 
upon] the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission [or, 
forgiveness] of your sins:' (Acts 2: 38, A. R. V.) Here 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 87 

repentance and baptism are represented as leading to the 
forgiveness of sins." (Alvah Hovey, "Commentary on 
John," Appendix, page 420.) 

It is feared that if we give to eis its natural and obvious 
meaning, undue importance will be ascribed to baptism, 
the atonement will be undervalued, and the work of the 
Holy Spirit disparaged. Especially is it asserted that here 
is the vital issue between Baptists and Campbellites. We 
are gravely told that if we render eis in Acts 2 : 38 m order 
to, we give up the battle, and must forthwith become Camp- 
bellites; whereas, if we translate it on account of, or in 
token of, it will yet be possible for us to remain Baptists. 
Such methods of interpretation are unworthy of Christian 
scholars. It is our business, simply and honestly, to ascer- 
tain the exact meaning of the inspired originals, as the 
sacred penman intended to convey it to the mind of the 
contemporary reader. Away with the question, "What 
ought Peter to have said in the interest of orthodoxy?" 
The real question is: "What did Peter say, and what did 
he mean, when he spoke on the day of Pentecost, under the 
inspiration of the Holy Spirit? "... And as to Camp- 
bellism, that specter which haunts many good men and 
terrifies them into a good deal of bad interpretation, shall 
we gain anything by maintaining a false translation and 
allowing the Campbellites to be champions of the true, with 
the world's scholarship on their side, as against us? Who- 
ever carries the weight of our controversy with the Camp- 
bellites upon the eis will break through — there is no footing 
there for the evolutions of the theological skater. Shall we 
never learn that truth has nothing to fear from a true in- 
terpretation of any part of God's word, and nothing to gain 
from a false one? The truth will suffer nothing by giving 
to eis its true signification. When Campbellites translate 
in order to in Acts 2: 38, they translate correctly. Is a 
translation false because Campbellites indorse it? " (James 
W. Willmarth, " Baptism and Remission," in Baptist Quar- 
terly, July, 1877, pages 304, 305.) 

If Dr. Lofton could succeed in showing that "for" in 
Acts 2: 38 does not mean in order to receive remission of 
sins, he would do well to straighten out the brains and 
scholarship of the Baptist Church before pouncing upon the 
" Campbellites." 

But let us hear Adam Clarke: 

"For remission of sins" (eis aphesin hamartion) — in 
reference to the remission or removal of sins. (" Com- 
mentary on Acts," chapter 2, verse 38.) 



88 Why the Baptist Name. 

The real scholars among the Baptists are so clear and 
emphatic in their teaching that " for " in Acts 2 : 38 means 
in order to receive forgiveness of sins that I cannot re- 
frain from closing this part of my review with a quotation 
from Albert Harkness (Baptist), Professor of Greek in 
Brown University, Providence, R. L: 

In my opinion, eis in Acts 2: 38 denotes purpose and 
may be rendered in order to, or for the purpose of receiving, 
or, as in our English version, for. Eis aphesin hamartion 
suggests the motive or object contemplated in the action of 
the two preceding verbs. (Letter to R. T. Matthews, Feb- 
ruary 24, 1876.) 

Thus it is seen how Dr. Lofton not only antagonizes the 
language of the Holy Spirit, but also the teaching of his 
own brethren. 



Dr. Lofton's First Reply. 

I wish to protest again that I take no " pleasure " in 
the use of the word " Campbellites." I do not use the 
word as a stigma at all, but as the patronymic of their 
founder, Alexander Campbell, from whom they have had 
a well-known succession for a little more than a century, 
and whose doctrines they have, more or less, distinctly fol- 
lowed. To call them " Christians," in the sense in which 
they claim the word as applicable to themselves alone, is 
to say that nobody else is Christian outside of their bap- 
tism and church; and as Alexander Campbell himself said: 
" No party in Christendom will ever call them ' Christians ' 
to the disparagement of themselves." It is my pleasure 
to recognize my Campbellite brethren personally as Chris- 
tians, in spite of their denominational errors, as I see them; 
but as denominationally distinguished by their peculiari- 
ties and principles they are decidedly unchristian from 
the standpoint of salvation by grace, through faith, alone. 
However, I take no " pleasure " in saying so. I wish it 
were otherwise. I like Brother Smith very much, despite 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 89 

his fiction that he is not a Campbellite, and that he is of 
the church of Christ as if Campbell never had existed. 

After quoting my tract under the second head, " Be- 
lievers' baptism as opposed to baptismal remission or re- 
generation," my opponent proceeds to repudiate " baptismal 
remission or regeneration " with as " much emphasis," he 
says, "as Baptists or others; " but he continues to assert 
his belief that the New Testament teaches baptism as one 
of the conditions leading to the remission of past sins, and 
that it is associated with regeneration." He then cites 
me to Tit. 3: 4, 5: "But when the kindness of God our 
Savior, and his love toward man, appeared, not by works 
done in righteousness, which we did ourselves, but accord- 
ing to his mercy he saved us, through the washing of re- 
generation and renewing of the Holy Ghost." In this pas- 
sage, " regeneration, the inward sign of that change, and 
baptism, the outward sign of that change, are regarded as 
only different sides or aspects of the same fact; and either 
side or aspect, therefore, might be described in terms de- 
rived from the other. So says Dr. Strong, who puts Tit. 
3: 5 in the list of those passages which are to be explained 
as particular instances of the general fact that, in Scripture 
language, a single part of a complex action, and even that 
part of it which is most obvious to the senses, is often 
mentioned for the whole of it, and thus, in this case, the 
whole of the solemn transaction of salvation through re- 
generation is designated by the external symbol, baptism, 
as expressed in the phrase, " the washing of regeneration " 
— regeneration and " renewing of the Holy Ghost " being 
one and the same thing. 

We are not saved by baptism and regeneration both, as 
would appear from a literal rendering of the whole text; 
but we are saved by regeneration as designated and sym- 
bolized by baptism — described as a " washing of regenera- 
tion." Baptism is not a literal bath or laver of regenera- 
tion; for you do not literally dip the sinner alive to sin, 
in order to kill him to sin and so make him alive to God. 
Baptism is the " likeness " of burying the old man already 
dead to sin, in order to symbolize him as alive to God — 



90 Why the Baptist Name. 

according to death, burial, and resurrection analogy. If 
the " washing of regeneration " — baptism — is not a figure, 
then it is a fact in salvation; and if it is a fact, then there 
are two regenerations. In every case of declaring salva- 
tion and symbolizing its blessings, baptism never loses its 
death, burial, and resurrection form and significance: the 
old man crucified to sin, the body of sin buried out of sight 
as dead, and the new man as raised to walk in newness of 
life. 

My opponent agrees with me that repentance precedes 
baptism, and that without repentance there can be no scrip- 
tural baptism, but, with vehement remonstrance, denies 
my position that "John baptized his converts (eis meta- 
noian) because of repentance;" and he refers me to Dr. 
McGarvey for the arguments in proof of his assertion. The 
Doctor, after several excellent efforts to show that baptism, 
in the above connection, could not, by the preposition eis, 
bring unto repentance, nor into repentance, nor into a 
state of repentance, since repentance precedes and is pre- 
requisite to baptism, proceeds to prove that John's baptism 
was not because of repentance, since baptism had a specific 
object of its own. " The preposition eis," he says, " is nev- 
er used to express the idea that one thing is done because 
of another thing having been done;" and he proceeds to 
solve the acknowledged difficulties of the case by rendering 
eis " in order to," as expressing purpose — that is, John 
baptized {eis metanoian) in order to (for the purpose of) 
repentance. However, he says: "The baptism was not in 
order to the repentance of the party baptized." This would 
involve one of the difficulties he mentions above — namely, 
that baptism thus construed would bring the baptized unto, 
or into, repentance; and so he proceeds to solve all the 
otherwise insoluble difficulties at once by the novel theory 
that John's baptism, administered to his penitent converts, 
had the purpose of exciting others to repentance in view 
of the blessings to be obtained by baptism for the remission 
of sins — just as rewards in school or promotions in the 
army, respectively, would excite good behavior and valor. 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 91 

This for substance: "In the same way," Dr. McGarvey 
says, "was John's baptism (eis) in order to repentance." 

Surely this is an artful piece of sophistry to dodge diffi- 
culties; but it has not even a shred of inference from the 
Scriptures. John baptized his converts because they re- 
pented, and not simply for the purpose of exciting others 
to repent for the glory of baptismal remission; and hence 
his baptism was a declaration of their repentance and a 
symbol of the remission of their sins upon the ground of 
their repentance — because of their repentance. 

Dr. McGarvey says that the preposition eis must be ren- 
dered in order to, and that it " is never used to express 
the idea that one thing is done because of another thing 
having been done." Brother Smith reiterates the same 
thing and triumphantly, as he thinks, demolishes the Bap- 
tist theory that baptism was administered " because of 
repentance;" and rising upon the tip of his toes and wav- 
ing his hat above his head, he exclaims in thunder tones: 
" Unless Dr. Lofton can find a clear example in Holy Writ 
where eis is so used, his case is hopelessly gone!" I cite 
him to Matt. 12: 41: "The men of Nineveh shall stand up 
in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn 
it: for they repented at [eis] the preaching of Jonah" — 
because, on account of, the preaching of Jonah. Here " one 
thing is done because of another thing having been done," 
as expressed by eis. Just so the baptism of John was ad- 
ministered (eis) because of repentance, which repentance 
is (eis) unto, or in order to, the remission of sins as sym- 
bolized by baptism. (Mark 1:4; Luke 3: 3.) 

My opponent attacks my proposition: "Baptism can 
produce neither repentance nor remission of sins, but bap- 
tism does certify or declare both." And to this he replies: 
" To whom does baptism certify or declare the remission 
of sins? Most certainly not to God, nor yet can it be to 
the world, for the mere outward form of baptism would 
be no evidence to the world that one immersed had received 
the remission of sins. It must, then, certify or declare the 
remission of sins to the one baptized. Hence those who 
repent have no certificate or declaration from God that 



92 Why the Baptist Name. 

their sins are forgiven until baptized." Brother Smith 
then gets upon his tiptoes again and shouts: "The Doctor 
by this statement has refuted his own position and estab- 
lished the fact that baptism is for (in the sense of in order 
to) the remission of past sins; for if baptism is a declara- 
tion of the remission of sins, we must come to baptism 
before God informs us that our sins are remitted/' 

But baptism involves the declaration only of a previous 
remission of sins (Acts 10: 47) : " Can any man forbid the 
water, that these should not be baptized, which have re- 
ceived the Holy Ghost as well as we?" Again, Gal. 3: 26, 
27 : " For [gar, by reason of what precedes — namely, justi- 
fication by faith] ye are all sons of God, through faith, in 
Christ Jesus. For [gar, by reason of what precedes — namely, 
your sonship through faith in Christ] as many of you as 
were baptized into Christ did put on Christ " — that is, sym- 
bolically and professionally. Hence, baptism is the out- 
ward expression and public declaration of an inward change 
already wrought in the penitent believer. Baptism sym- 
bolically and professionally puts us into Christ, and puts 
on Christ, as a matter of faith and standing before the 
world; and we are still exhorted to put him on spiritually 
in view of our profession. (Rom. 13: 14.) Hence, baptism 
is the certificate of our salvation by grace, through faith, 
in Christ, at the hands of God's administrator, according to 
the law of the ordinance; but it is not a certificate to our- 
selves, nor to God, but to all the world, that we have re- 
pented and believed, that our sins have been forgiven, and 
that we are obligated to " walk in newness of life," as 
symbolized by our baptism, which declares us dead, buried, 
and risen in Christ, according to an inward change already 
experienced in our hearts, by which we know that we have 
passed from death unto life, because we love God, love 
the truth, and love our brother. (1 John 3: 14-20.) 

Of course, the world has no experimental evidence, 
through our baptism, that we are the children of God; but 
baptism is God's initial method by which we formally and 
publicly profess and certify that we are God's children, 
and so become organically united with his people. It is 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 93 

not God's certificate to us that we have become his children. 
We have, as already intimated, God's inward certificate of 
that fact; and we must have it before baptism — that is, the 
evidence of conversion through repentance and faith that 
works by love and is willing to obey the gospel. " The 
Spirit himself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are 
the children of God" (Rom. 8: 16) ; and we know that we 
know when we love — all of which is our certificate of sal- 
vation from God before we certify the fact, first of all, in 
baptism, which is our great symbolic confession of faith. 
Cornelius and his house, who received the Spirit, spake with 
tongues and magnified God, had all the evidences of con- 
version before baptism; and their baptism was their cer- 
tificate of the fact. (Acts 10: 43-47.) 

Acts 22: 16, cited by my opponent, says nothing of Saul's 
rejoicing in the forgiveness of sins after baptism. Clearly 
Saul's sins were forgiven before baptism, as indicated (1) 
by his conversion to Christ when he asked, " What shall I 
do, Lord?" (2) by Christ's commission of him as apostle 
to the Gentiles on the spot where he was converted; (3) 
by his three-days' fast and prayer for further light and 
guidance, after being told that he should be so informed 
in Damascus of what things he should do; (4) by the min- 
istration of Ananias, who laid his hands upon Saul that he 
might " receive his sight " and be " filled with the Holy 
Spirit," whereupon the scales, as it were, fell from his 
eyes and he received the Spirit (under the laying on of 
hands), arose and was baptized, took food and was strength- 
ened. His baptism symbolically washed away his sins al- 
ready forgiven upon repentance and faith; and the fact 
was thus declared in baptism, as in Acts 10: 43-47. Saul, 
like Cornelius and his house, received the Spirit before 
baptism. (Acts 9: 17, 18.) 

Christians do rejoice after baptism, after obeying God 
and doing their duty; but they rejoice before baptism- 
filled with the Spirit, speaking with tongues (of praise) 
and magnifying God, as Cornelius and his house; and so, 
no doubt, Saul of Tarsus. My opponent, however, assumes 
that the only thing that makes baptism a certificate of for- 



94 Why the Baptist Name. 

giveness, or of the remission of sins, is the promise ol 
God at the end of baptism, " He that believeth and is bap- 
tized shall be saved" (Mark 16: 16); but if God's promise 
of remission is based upon faith alone, as in Acts 10: 43-47, 
and Cornelius and his house were saved, as evidenced, be- 
fore baptism, then baptism is only the sign and declara- 
tion of the fact as evidenced. Of course, " he that believeth 
and is baptized " — baptized to symbolize the fact — " shall 
be saved;" but the baptism is not a condition of salvation, 
but only the accompanying sign. 

I come now to my interpretation of Acts 2: 38, which 
my opponent assails most vigorously with the testimony of 
Adam Clarke and three Baptist scholars — Drs. Hovey, Will- 
marth, and Harkness — against my position. All the schol- 
arship in the world, however, will avail nothing, if I am 
right, which I shall show; and in order to a clear under- 
standing of my position, let me here insert what I said in 
my tract regarding Acts 2: 38. After treating the subject 
of John's "baptism (eis metanoian) unto repentance," and 
his "baptism of repentance (eis aphesin hamartion) unto 
remission of sins," I said: 

This is precisely the case (Acts 2: 38) when Peter said: 
" Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name 
of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins {.eis aphesin 
hamartion]; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy 
Spirit." " Remission of sins " here follows " the name of 
Jesus Christ," the sole ground of faith, involving prior re- 
pentance, upon which remission was based and so declared 
by baptism. As of the Jews at Pentecost, so of the Gentiles 
at Csesarea, to whom Peter said (Acts 10: 43): "To him 
bear all the prophets witness, that through his name every 
one that believeth on him shall receive remission of sins;" 
and while Peter spake these very " words whereby Cornelius 
and all his house should be saved" (Acts 11: 14), they be- 
lieved unto the remission of sins, they were converted, the 
Holy Spirit fell upon them, they spake with tongues, mag- 
nified God, and in token of the fact they were afterwards 
baptized in water (Acts 10: 43-48). Notice in both in- 
stances (Acts 2: 38 and 10: 43) that "through the name of 
Jesus," believed upon, is the remission of sin (always im- 
plying repentance) ; and while baptism is not mentioned in 
Acts 10 : 43 as in Acts 2 : 38, yet we see the place and prov- 
ince of baptism the same in both cases — the declarative 
symbol of a preceding fact, testified to by the gift of the 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 95 

Holy Ghost which was bestowed, in the latter case, before 
baptism. Peter clearly agrees with the order of John the 
Baptist as to repentance and faith; and also as to baptism 
subsequent to and because of the remission of sins, and not 
" in order to " the fact thus declared. . . . Jerusalem and 
Csesarea were perfectly parallel instances of salvation by 
grace — of sins remitted through repentance and faith and 
certified by baptism. More than this, Csesarea was a later 
and clearer enactment of Christ's law of baptism with ref- 
erence to the remission of sins than that of Pentecost. 

Now it will be seen that Brother Smith, in his criticism 
of this part of my tract, left out my argument from Acts 
10: 43-47; and in his interpretation of Acts 2: 38 alone he 
turned his big Baptist guns with one Methodist against my 
position which interpreted Acts 2: 38 by Acts 10: 43-47. 
Scripture interprets scripture; and I insist that Acts 2: 38 
is interpreted by Acts 10: 43-47 as the latest and clearest 
pronouncement upon the subject of baptism in its relation 
to faith and the remission of sins; and if Acts 10: 43-47 
clearly proves that baptism follows both faith and the re- 
mission of sins, then Acts 10: 43-47 does interpret Acts 2: 
38, about which there is doubt and dispute as to interpre- 
tation. All the scholarship of earth cannot construe Acts 
2: 38 to mean baptism in order to the remission of sins, 
if Acts 10: 43-47 plainly shows that remission of sins is 
predicated of faith, through " the name of Jesus Christ," 
to " every one that believeth on him," as exemplified by the 
baptism of Cornelius and his house after their conversion 
— after receiving the Holy Spirit, speaking with tongues 
and magnifying God! There could be no exception in their 
case, if sins must be remitted in baptism; and as Peter, in 
his report to the apostles, makes no explanation of any 
difference, on this point, between Jerusalem and Caesarea, 
the cases are precisely the same. 

In Acts 2 : 38, " Repent ye, and be baptized every one of 
you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of 
your sins," the subordinate clause, " and be baptized every 
one of you," is parenthetical with a single verb and subject, 
whereas " repent ye " is plural and grammatically construed 
with the phrase, " in [upon] the name of Jesus Christ," im- 



96 Why the Baptist Name. 

plying faith in Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, as 
symbolized and declared by baptism, and as seen in Acts 
10: 43-47. Peter, in both cases, uses the "name" of Jesus 
Christ "believed on" as the ground of remission; and 
hence, " be baptized every one of you," parenthetical in Acts 
2: 38, occupies the same place and holds the same office 
as Acts 10 : 47 : " Can any man forbid the water, that these 
should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit 
as well as we?" In other words, Acts 2: 38 and Acts 10: 
47 do the same thing in setting forth the spiritual change 
wrought through repentance and faith — namely, the remis- 
sion of sins — by symbolizing the fact in baptism as already 
accomplished. 

Peter is clear (Acts 10: 43), "That through his name 
every one that believeth on him shall receive remission of 
sins," baptism here following and declaring the fact as 
consummated; and Acts 2: 38, "Repent ye, and be baptized 
every one of you in [upon] the name of Jesus Christ [be- 
lieving on him] unto the remission of your sins," must be 
precisely in accord with Acts 10 : 43 without any possibility 
of conflict in the divine record. Acts 2: 38 was Peter's 
utterance to the Jews, differing only in form, being due 
to the mode of Jewish expression, or Scripture symbolism, 
as pointed out by Dr. Strong, who includes Acts 2: 38 
among the list of passages which come under this head. 
Luke 24: 47 and Acts 3: 19; 10: 43, unquestionably fix 
repentance and faith as the sole conditions of remission 
of sins without any reference to baptism; and it is not 
until the act of baptism occurs (Acts 2: 38; 10: 47) that 
baptism is mentioned in connection with the remission of 
sins. The law of remission is set up in repentance and 
faith, both of them spiritual conditions essential to a spir- 
itual change; and baptism, an external act, could not be 
added as a condition except in the sense of symbolism as 
setting forth the fact of which repentance and faith must 
be the efficient ground. Baptism cannot wash away 
sin literally nor instrumentally. " The blood of Jesus 
Christ cleanseth from all sin" (1 John 1: 7), and there 
cannot be two things (water and blood) doing the same 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 97 

thing, in the same sense, at the same time. To add water 
to blood as an efficient cause of salvation — with or without 
faith — is to make the blood of Christ " of none effect." 
The Judaizers sought to add circumcision to the blood in 
order to salvation, to this effect; and this is what Camp- 
bellism does with water. " If it is by grace, it is no more 
of works: otherwise grace is no more grace." (Rom. 11: 6.) 
Acts 10: 43-47 settles the question. If so, then baptism 
is solely a symbolical and declarative act of obedience on 
the part of the believer in token of salvation by grace, 
through faith, alone; and is also the bond of obligation, 
the oath of allegiance, and the badge of profession on the 
part of every true believer who thus puts on Christ before 
the world. Like the Lord's Supper, baptism shows forth 
the death of Christ, also his burial and resurrection; and 
it shows forth our spiritual death, burial, and resurrection 
in Christ — our cleansing, regeneration, and union with him 
— and that we are the children of God by faith, and so 
united with the body of Christ. 



Mr. Smith's Second Review. 

Brother Lofton once more apologizes for using the term 
" Campbellites," but in this, as in his former apology, he 
assigns as his reason for so doing that those whom he thus 
designates are the followers of the doctrines of Alexander 
Campbell, who was " their founder." But with all of Dr. 
Lofton's learning and his free access to the faith, teaching, 
and practice of the people thus designated by him, he has 
most signally failed to produce one iota of proof that they 
follow the doctrines of Alexander Campbell or those of any 
other uninspired man. I am perfectly willing to leave it 
to the verdict of the candid readers of this book as to 
whether or not I have given a " Thus saith the Lord " for 
the faith that is within me. As to his other charge, that 
we use the name " Christian " " as applicable to ourselves 
alone," I will simply say that he is mistaken. We claim to 
7 



98 Why the Baptist Name. 

be Christians only, while Brother Lofton claims to be more 
than this — namely, a " Christian Baptist " or a " Baptist 
Christian." The word of God knows nothing of such Chris- 
tians, any more than it does of Methodist Christians, Pres- 
byterian Christians, etc. The New Testament simply 
speaks of Christians; and if Dr. Lofton and others prefer 
to add to the word of God in adopting sectarian names, they 
should not fall out with us for refusing to do the same. 

I most certainly appreciate the esteem in which Brother 
Lofton says he holds me, and can assure him most sincerely 
that I entertain the kindliest feelings for him. There is 
no reason why we should not like each other simply be- 
cause we differ religiously, and believing in the power of 
God's truth to dispel error, it is not too much to hope that 
Dr. Lofton may yet see his errors and renounce his denomi- 
national peculiarities. At present, however, he is having 
considerable trouble in trying to make Tit. 3: 4, 5 fit his 
theory of salvation from past sins, a thing he can never do, 
not even with Dr. Strong's help. The passage reads: "Not 
by works done in righteousness, which we did ourselves, 
but according to his mercy he saved us, through the wash- 
ing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit." 

Now note: (1) God saves us, (2) according to his mercy, 
and (3) through the washing of regeneration and renewing 
of the Holy Spirit. Here God is said to save us through 
the instrumentality of two things and not one — viz.: the 
washing (or bath) of regeneration and the renewing of the 
Holy Spirit. The word " regeneration " occurs in only one 
other place in the New Testament, and is from the same 
word in the Greek (paligge), hence the meaning is the 
same in both passages. " In the regeneration when the 
Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory, ye also shall 
sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of 
Israel." (Matt. 19: 28.) "Regeneration" here means "re- 
creation," or passing out of the Jewish dispensation into 
the Christian dispensation, and "regeneration" in Tit. 3: 
5 means " re-creation " — or passing out of the world into the 
kingdom of Christ. It is exactly equivalent to the "new 
birth," in which God employs the agencies of water and 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 99 

Spirit in re-creating man. Of course " we are not saved by 
baptism and regeneration," but we are " regenerated " or 
"re-created" through the washing (baptism) of regenera- 
tion and renewing of the Holy Spirit. To show how far 
the Doctor has wandered from the truth taught by this 
passage, I submit the following from Alvah Hovey: 

Paul had in mind baptism as representing and confessing 
the divine change called " regeneration." Hence he teaches 
that men are saved by an outworking, obedient life, given 
and preserved by the Holy Spirit." ("Commentary on 
John," Appendix, page 422.) 

This man was one of the greatest Baptists of America, who 
was president of Newton Theological Institution, Newton 
Center, Mass. He says Tit. 3: 5 teaches that washing 
of regeneration is baptism, and that thus " men are saved 
by an outworking, obedient life." Instead of baptism being 
classed among works of righteousness, which men do and 
which cannot save them, it is put over against these and 
made one of the conditions of " regeneration " or " re- 
creation " through which God saves us. 

Brother Lofton says that I deny his position that "John 
baptized his converts because of repentance." I most cer- 
tainly did say that it is not stated that John baptized his 
converts for that purpose, and gave overwhelming proof to 
sustain my denial, which proof I am pleased to note has 
not been overturned by the Doctor's skillful pen. I sub- 
mitted the comment of J. W. McGarvey on this passage 
relative to the relation between John's baptism and the 
remission of sins, and concerning which my friend says: 
" Surely this is an artful piece of sophistry to dodge diffi- 
culties, but it has not even a shred of inference from the 
Scriptures." Well, this matter will have to be left to the 
judgment of those who are sufficiently acquainted with the 
laws of language to determine whose position is right, and 
I fear not the decision of all such who are candid and un- 
prejudiced. 

It is true that John baptized his converts because they 
repented, and it is equally true that he baptized them in 
order to receive the remission of their sins: but the ex- 



100 Why the Baptist Name. 

pressed purpose for which he baptized them is denoted by 
the use of the preposition eis, which means in order to 
obtain the remission of sins. If the inspired writer had 
intended to express the idea that John baptized because of 
repentance, he would have used the preposition peri, which 
means because of or on account of. When a thing is done 
for more than one purpose, involving past and future tense, 
and only one purpose is stated, we must determine whether 
the act looks to the past or future by the meaning of the 
preposition denoting the fact. For illustration: "For this 
is my blood of the covenant, which is shed for [peri] many 
for lets'] remission of sins." (Matt. 26: 28.) Christ shed 
his blood on account of (peri) sins, but also for (eis) re- 
mission of sins. This the Doctor can verify by consulting 
his Greek Testament. In view of this fact, I said if Dr. 
Lofton could not find where eis was used to express the 
idea that one thing is done because of another thing having 
been done, that his cause was hopelessly gone. But he 
thinks he has saved his sinking ship with the passage 
which says the men of Nineveh repented at (eis) the 
preaching of Jonah. (Matt. 12: 41.) He makes "repented 
at " mean because of, or on account of, the preaching of 
Jonah; but in this, as in the case of John's baptism, he is 
very much in error. Once more I beg leave to refer to 
that prince of biblical exegetes, J. W. McGarvey: 

The preposition here rendered at is eis, which usually 
means into. Some writers have contended that it here 
means because of, or in consequence of, a meaning quite 
foreign to the word. It is true, as a matter of fact, that 
the Ninevites repented in consequence of the preaching of 
Jonah; but if it had been the purpose of the writer to ex- 
press this thought, he would have used the preposition dia 
instead of eis. The thought of the passage is quite distinct 
from this. They repented into the preaching of Jonah. 
This is not Idiomatic English, but it conveys the exact 
thought which a Greek would derive from the original. 
The term preaching is put for the course of life required by 
the preaching, and it is asserted that they repented into 
this. Their repentance, in other words, brought them into 
the course of life which the preaching required. If Jesus 
had merely said that they repented in consequence of Jonah's 
preaching, he would have stopped short with the internal 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 101 

change which they underwent; but he chooses to go further 
and indicate the terminus of their repentance, that it 
brought them into the condition which the preaching de- 
manded. The rendering 4i at the preaching " does not bring 
out the idea in full, but it would be difficult to translate 
the passage any more accurately without adopting an awk- 
ward circumlocution. 

This interpretation of the passage is demanded by the 
history of the Ninevites, which says: "And God saw their 
works, that they turned from their evil way." (Jonah 3: 
10.) It was this new life into which their repentance 
brought them or into which they repented "at" {Bis) the 
preaching of Jonah. Brother Lofton will have to find an- 
other passage, as this will not serve his purpose. He uses 
the laboring oar against a mighty current in his effort to 
sustain his position that baptism " is a certificate," not to 
ourselves, but " to all the world, that we have repented and 
believed, and that our sins have been forgiven;" but up 
till now he has made no headway. That would all be very 
nice if he could read one word of it in the Bible; but when 
he turns to that Book for help, its pages are as silent as the 
grave on the subject of baptism being a " declaration " or 
" certificate " to the " whole world " or even any part of it 
that our sins are forgiven. To whom, my brother, did 
the offering of Isaac by Abraham on the mountain certify 
Abraham's acceptance with God? "Was it not in this offer- 
ing and because of this offering that God said: "Lay not 
thy hand upon the lad, neither do thou anything unto 
him; for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou 
hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, from me? " (Gen. 
22: 12.) Does not the apostle James, referring to this, 
say: "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, in 
that he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar? Thou 
seest that faith wrought with his works, and by works 
[or obedience] was faith made perfect." (James 2: 21, 22.) 
His faith was not perfected until he obeyed God in this 
offering, and the words of God, " Now I know that thou 
fearest God," at the end of obedience forever made the 
offering of Isaac a " certificate " to Abraham himself that 
he was accepted of God. Likewise our faith in the Lord 



102 Why the Baptist Name. 

Jesus Christ is made perfect in baptism, at the end of 
which stand the words " shall be saved," which forever 
makes baptism God's certificate to the one baptized that he 
or she was accepted of God. Baptism is our certificate of 
union with Christ, for in our baptism we are "planted in 
the likeness of his death." Yea, it is our marriage certifi- 
cate, because we are baptized into him and thus become 
members of his body or one with him. 

Dr. Lofton says, " Clearly Saul's sins were forgiven before 
baptism," and then proceeds to give his reasons for this 
statement, reaching the conclusion that " his baptism sym- 
bolically washed away his sins, already forgiven upon re- 
pentance and faith." He teaches that when a sinner " really 
and truly repents of his sins and believes on the Lord Jesus 
Christ," then and there he is a child of God, that his sins are 
forgiven, and that he is made conscious of the fact by the 
Spirit of God. Now let us apply his theory to the case in 
hand. Saul met the Lord on the road to Damascus, when 
and where the Doctor says Saul was converted, and when, 
according to the Doctor's rule, men are made conscious of 
sins forgiven, in consequence of which they always rejoice. 
But this rule does not work in Saul's case; for after he met 
the Lord when the Doctor asserts he was converted and 
forgiven, we find him in the city of Damascus, having been 
in a state of deep repentance for three long days and nights, 
so much so that he had neither eaten nor drunk since he met 
the Lord. Furthermore, he refused to eat or drink until 
after he was oaptized. Can Dr. Lofton, in the light of his 
faith and teaching, explain how it was that a man with 
the consciousness of sins forgiven continued in this mental 
anguish until oaptized? He cannot, but in the light of my 
faith and teaching it all harmonizes. Jesus Christ said, 
" He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;" and the 
reason Saul did not eat or drink, but continued in depressed 
spirits, was because he had not yet been told what he must 
do or what was appointed for him to do by the one to whom 
he was sent by Jesus. When Ananias came to him and 
said, "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, 
and wash away thy sins, calling on his name" (Acts 22: 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 103 

16), Saul did this, and came to the promise of salvation, 
and the record says: " He took food and was strengthened " 
(Acts 9: 19). 

The Doctor intimates that the " scales " which fell from 
Saul's eyes (or "as it were scales") had reference to the 
forgiveness of sins; hut he should know that it was only the 
restoration of his physical sight, for he had heen smitten 
with blindness. 

If Saul's sins were forgiven before he was baptized, then 
he must have been wholly unconscious of it, and Ananias 
must have been a deceiver, for he told Saul to " wash away 
his sins," which could not have been done if they were al- 
ready forgiven. Here is the way that some of the ablest 
men that ever had fellowship with the Baptists, and who 
were and are noted Baptist teachers, view this matter. 
Hovey says: 

"Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling 
on the name of the Lord." (Acts 22: 16.) Of course there 
is no such thing possible as a literal washing away of sins. 
A removal of sins from the soul by bathing the body is ab- 
surd. But there is such a thing as forgiveness of sins; and 
this may be described figuratively as washing them away, 
so that henceforth the soul may be " clean " from the guilt 
of sin. ("Commentary on John," Appendix, page 420.) 

This is what those whom the Doctor calls " Campbellites " 
believe and teach, and yet he calls it " Campbellism!" 

Another great Baptist, Horatio B. Hackett, Professor of 
Biblical Literature and New Testament Exegesis in Roches- 
ter Theological Seminary, says: 

"And wash [bathe] away thy sins." This clause states a 
result of the baptism in language derived from the nature 
of the ordinance. It answers to for the remission of sins, 
in Acts 2: 38 — i. e., submit to the rite in order to be for- 
given. In both passages baptism is represented as bearing 
this importance or efficacy because it is the sign of the re- 
pentance and faith which are the conditions of salvation. 
("Commentary," on Acts 22: 16, page 258.) 

While Hackett says that "repentance and faith are the 
conditions of salvation, it will be observed that in the in- 
terpretation of the passage his scholarship forced him to 
make baptism also a condition of salvation, for he says 



104 Why the Baptist Name. 

that they were to submit to the rite in order to be forgiven. 
It will be observed also that he does not, as Dr. Lofton does, 
make baptism a sign or symbol of remission of sins, but a 
sign of repentance and faith. Now I believe what these 
eminent Baptists teach on this point; and if this makes me 
a " Campbellite," how did it happen to make them Bap- 
tists? 

I cannot refrain from calling one more witness from the 
Baptist ranks — J. W. Willmarth: 

Ananias, divinely sent to Saul of Tarsus, blind, penitent, 
and prayerful, thus instructed him: "And now why tarriest 
thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, call- 
ing on the name of the Lord" The washing away refers to 
remission; the last clause requires the exercise of faith in 
Christ. ("Baptism and Remission," in Baptist Quarterly, 
July, 1877, page 310.) 

Through the merits of the shed blood of the Son of God 
our sins are " washed away " or are forgiven by the Lord 
when we are baptized into his name. This is what these 
great Baptists, as scholars, aside from theological bias, 
teach, and this is what I believe and teach. 

Saul of Tarsus was told to submit to the ordinance of 
baptism in order that his sins might be " washed away " 
or " forgiven " through the merits of the blood of Christ, 
and this is one of the things appointed for all to do who 
would come to the promise of remission of sins. " He that 
believeth and is baptized shall be saved " is the language of 
God's Son, the Savior of men. 

My friend says : " I come now to my interpretation of Acts 
2: 38, which my opponent assails most vigorously with the 
testimony of Adam Clarke and three Baptist scholars — Drs. 
Hovey, Willmarth, and Harkness." The plain import of the 
passage itself " assails " the Doctor's position with enough 
vigor to open the eyes of the blind, and I simply gave the 
testimony of these great scholars to show that I am not 
alone in my contention. He further says: "All the scholar- 
ship in the world, however, will avail nothing, if I am right 
in my position, which I shall show." The only way to de- 
termine the meaning of language, the grammatical con- 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 105 

struction of sentences, and the relation of one word to an- 
other is by the " scholarship of the world," and I am frank 
to say that had Dr. Lofton arrayed the " scholarship of the 
world " against me as I have him on this as well as other 
passages, I would yield the whole controversy. But how 
does he show that he is right and the scholarship of all the 
world is wrong? Hear him: " The subordinate clause, 'and 
oe baptized every one of you,' is parenthetical, with a single 
verb and subject, whereas ' repent ye ' is plural and gram- 
matically construed with the phrase, 'in [upon] the name 
of Jesus Christ; implying faith in Jesus Christ for the re- 
mission of sins." Now the " scholarship of the world " 
grammatically construed this sentence, but did not reach 
the same conclusion my friend has. What if " repent ye " 
is plural, while " be baptized " is singular? Did not bap- 
tism extend to all who repented? The command to "re- 
pent " was addressed to all, and the command to " be bap- 
tized " was addressed not only to those who repented, but to 
all who repented, and, therefore, is expressed in the sin- 
gular number or used distributively. The command to " re- 
pent " and to " be baptized " for the remission of sins shows 
that the command to repent is for the same end or purpose 
to those who were baptized as the baptism itself. 

I will now submit to Brother Lofton the following prob- 
lem, in the solution of which I trust he will deal in no 
circumlocution, but come straight to the work. In Acts 2: 
38 the people were told to " repent and be baptized for the 
remission of sins." "Will you please tell us the relation de- 
noted by the copulative " and " which unites baptism with 
repentance? If you say the people were to repent in order 
to the remission of sins, were they not to be baptized for 
the same purpose for which they were to repent? If not, 
why not? 

I must treat the Doctor to more scholarship from Baptist 
authors on the relation of repentance and baptism to the 
remission of sins. Horatio B. Hackett says: 

"In order to the forgiveness of sins (Matt. 26: 28; Luke 
3: 3) we connect naturally with both the preceding verbs. 
This clause states the motive or object which should in- 



106 Why the Baptist Name. 

duce them to repent and be baptized. It enforces the entire 
exhortation, not one part of it to the exclusion of the 
other. (" Commentary," on Acts 2: 38, page 53.) 

This is in perfect keeping with the teaching of those 
whom Dr. Lofton says " follow the doctrines of Alexander 
Campbell." 

But more, this time from Albert Harkness: 

In my opinion eis in Acts 2: 38 denotes purpose, and may 
be rendered in order to, or for the purpose of receiving, or, 
as in our English version, for. Eis apTiesin Jiarmartion sug- 
gests the motive or object contemplated in the action of the 
two preceding verbs. (Letter to R. T. Mathews, February 
24, 1876.) 

Again, W. R. Harper, President of Chicago University, 

says: 

In answer to your letter I would say that the preposition 
eis is to be translated "unto" — i. e., "in order to secure." 
The preposition indicates that remission of sins is the end 
aimed at in the actions expressed by the predicates repent 
and be baptized. The phrase is telic. (Letter to J. W. 
Shepherd, April 22, 1893.) 

Once more, Alvah Hovey says: 

"Repent and be baptized every one of you in [or upon] 
the name of Jesus Christ, unto the remission [or forgive- 
ness] of your sins: 1 (Acts 2: 38, R. V.) Here repentance 
and baptism are represented as leading to the forgiveness 
of sins. (" Commentary on John," Appendix, page 420.) 

These are all Baptist scholars, and it will be noted that 
they say (1) that "for" (eis) in Acts 2: 38 looks forward 
and not backward, and (2) that both "repentance" and 
" baptism " were in order to the remission of sins. 

The Doctor intimates that I have " shied " around the 
case of Cornelius, recorded in Acts 10: 43-47. This appears 
to be his main crutch on which he leans for support in sus- 
taining his theory of remission before baptism, but I shall 
now proceed to relieve him of this prop. He says: "All the 
scholarship of earth cannot construe Acts 2: 38 to mean 
baptism in order to the remission of sins, if Acts 10: 43-47 
plainly shows that remission of sins is predicated of faith, 
through ' the name of Jesus Christ: " There is absolutely 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 107 

no conflict in a single particular between my position on 
Acts 2: 38 and the statement in Acts 10: 43. Dr. Lofton 
well knows that salvation here is not predicated of faith 
alone " through his name," for this would have people saved 
without repentance, a thing that he repudiates. What 
then? He will tell us that salvation by faith " through his 
name" includes repentance, although not expressed; that 
repentance is implied. Very well. Will he now tell us by 
what principle or law of language he can include repent- 
ance and exclude baptism, which is as much associated 
with the name of Christ as either faith or repentance? Are 
we not baptized into the name of Christ, and is it not in 
him that " we have our redemption through his blood, the 
forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of 
his grace?" (Eph. 1: 7.) The whole scheme of redemp- 
tion is a system of faith, and every act man performs in 
the service of God, in coming to God for salvation from 
past sins and the development of the new life even down 
to the brink of the grave, is predicated of faith, because it 
is faith that moves man to obey God, not only in baptism, 
but in everything else he does that is pleasing to God. The 
fruits of repentance, like baptism, are but the outward ex- 
pression of the inward faith, or faith embodied in acts of 
obedience. Therefore, whenever salvation from past sins is 
predicated of faith, it always includes both repentance and 
baptism, for Jesus Christ, in giving the very constitution 
of his government, said: " He that believeth and is baptized 
shall be saved." (Mark 16: 16.) This fact is verified in 
the salvation of Cornelius and his family. The angel God 
sent to him said that the apostle Peter, for whom he was to 
send, would tell him " words," whereby he and his house 
should be saved. (Acts 11: 14.) Now, among the words 
Peter spoke to Cornelius and his house we find the com- 
mand to be baptized. (Acts 10: 48.) "And he commanded 
them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ." Hence, 
I fully agree with my friend that "Acts 10 : 43-47 settles the 
question," but not according to the " faith alone " theory of 
salvation. 
The Doctor says: " I insist that Acts 2: 38 is interpreted 



108 Why the Baptist Name. 

by Acts 10: 43-47 as the latest and clearest pronouncement 
upon the subject of baptism in its relation to faith and the 
remission of sins." Then the world had to be in more or 
less doubt about the meaning of Peter's sermon on Pentecost 
for something like ten years, if what the Doctor says is 
true! You are simply mistaken, my brother, for the Holy 
Spirit, who was an infallible Guide, was speaking through 
Peter on Pentecost (Acts 2: 4), and laid down the law of 
induction into the kingdom, or the conditions of remission 
of sins, in all their fullness and completeness, and, there- 
fore, Acts 10: 43-47 must he interpreted in the light of Acts 
2: 38, which was the beginning of the preaching of repent- 
ance and remission of sins in the name of Christ. The 
Doctor tells us that " Cornelius and his house, who received 
the Spirit, spoke with tongues and magnified God, had all 
the evidences of conversion before baptism." I will here 
remind him that the question involved is not conversion, 
but pardon or forgiveness of past sins. He seems to r§st 
his case upon the fact that Cornelius and his house " re- 
ceived the Spirit and spoke with tongues " before baptism 
as an evidence of their pardon. Now, if he could show 
that the miraculous reception of the Spirit which enabled 
them to speak in different languages was an evidence from 
God that their sins had been forgiven, his case would be 
made out, but such evidence is not in the record with refer- 
ence to the salvation of Cornelius or any one else. This 
miraculous demonstration occurred as a witness or evidence, 
not that Cornelius and his house were saved, but to con- 
vince the Jews that the Gentiles had a right to the king- 
dom of God and an interest in the gospel of his grace. 
Hence the words of Peter: " Can any man forbid the water, 
that these should not be baptized, who have received the 
Holy Spirit as well as we [meaning " we Jews "] ? " Those 
who accompanied Peter to the house of Cornelius, his Jew- 
ish brethren, were amazed when they saw that the Holy 
Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles, and this won- 
derful phenomena forever settled the question between Jews 
and Gentiles as to who should be admitted to the kingdom. 
It took a miracle on the house top to convince Peter that he 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 109 

ought to preach to the Gentiles, and it took this miracle 
at Cornelius' house to convince the six Jewish brethren 
who accompanied him that Cornelius and family should he 
baptized. Nothing like this had occurred since Pentecost, 
when the apostles were baptized in the Holy Spirit, for 
Peter had to go back to the " beginning " to find anything 
like it. (See Acts 11: 15.) In giving an account of this 
miraculous demonstration at the house of Cornelius to the 
Jewish Christians as a justification for his having preached 
to them and having them baptized, it is said: "And when 
they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified 
God, saying, Then to the Gentiles also hath God granted 
repentance unto life." (Acts 11: 18.) These Gentiles were 
not baptized in the Holy Spirit to give them faith, for 
Peter says they were to hear the word at his mouth and 
believe. (Acts 15: 7.) They were not baptized in the Holy 
Spirit to save them, for Peter was to tell them words where- 
by they should be saved. (Acts 11: 14.) If this baptism 
in the Holy Spirit was necessary to save or convert Cor- 
nelius, then well may we ask the question: Why send for 
Peter? .If this is God's way of converting and saving peo- 
ple, then preachers and preaching are not needed. Dr. Lof- 
ton never witnessed a baptism in the Holy Spirit in all of 
his life, and never will, for the day of miracles has long 
since passed. The same cause produces the same effect on 
all occasions if surrounded by the same circumstances, and 
because of this unvarying law in both nature and grace, 
we know none are baptized in the Holy Spirit now. Fol- 
lowing Peter's reference to the " beginning," we are led to 
Pentecost, where the apostles were baptized in the Holy 
Spirit, resulting in the miraculous demonstration of speak- 
ing in different languages; and the same effect follows the 
same cause at the house of Cornelius, for " they heard them 
speak with tongues, and magnify God" (Acts 10: 46.) I 
believe with all my heart that " the Spirit himself beareth 
witness with our spirit, that we are children of God " (Rom. 
8: 16), but as to how he does this Dr. Lofton and I are not 
agreed. He contends that the Spirit does this directly or 
immediately and mysteriously, while I contend that he does 



110 Why the Baptist Name. 

it through the testimony of his revealed or written word. 
The Spirit has given through the gospel the conditions of 
sonship, and when one complies with these conditions, he 
has this testimony of the Spirit bearing witness with, not 
to, his spirit that he is a child of God. What evidence 
greater than the blessed word of the Spirit does any one 
who desires to honor God need to make him happy and fill 
him with a joy divine? 



Dr. Lofton's Second Reply. 

My position that Brother Smith and his people are the 
followers of Alexander Campbell is the universal position 
of all who speak or write on the subject; and it is certain 
that they have had an unbroken succession of doctrine, 
practice, and organism from Alexander Campbell and his 
day, substantially, if not precisely, holding his funda- 
mental position — namely, that, in order to the salvation 
of a sinner, one must believe the word of God and repent 
of sin, without the direct operation of the Holy Spirit, 
and be baptized in water for the remission of sins. My 
opponent claims that he only speaks a " Thus saith the 
Lord " for the faith within him, and without any reference 
or relation to Alexander Campbell; but this is precisely 
what Alexander said and what his followers have said ever 
since, as if he and they were the only people on earth who 
speak a " Thus saith the Lord " in the scriptural sense of 
God's word, comprehending a system of salvation. 

I am glad to learn that I am " mistaken " in the charge 
that my Campbellite brethren use the name " Christian " 
as alone applicable to themselves. My brother says, "We 
claim to be Christians only;" while I claim to be more 
than this — namely, a "Christian Baptist" or a "Baptist 
Christian," of which he says the word of God knows noth- 
ing. This may be technically true as to phraseology, but 
John was a " Baptist Christian " or a " Christian Baptist " 
in fact, and so of all those who have followed him in 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. Ill 

name, teaching, and baptism, none of which is " sectarian " 
if scriptural. 

I certainly reciprocate the kindly feelings of Brother 
Smith, and share with him a like sympathy as to " er- 
rors;" and as he sincerely wishes that I could see mine 
and renounce them, as he sees them, so do I wish for him. 
I assure him, however, that Tit. 3 : 4, 5 gives me no trouble 
in trying to fit the passage to the gospel theory of salva- 
tion by grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. I 
accept the interpretation cited from Hovey ("Commentary 
on John," Appendix, page 422). His position that Paul 
meant by " the washing of regeneration," baptism as rev- 
resenting and confessing the divine change called " regen- 
eration," is exactly my position that baptism here sym- 
bolizes and declares "regeneration;" and I have no ob- 
jection to his further position that " men are saved by 
an outworking, obedient life, given and preserved by the 
Holy Spirit." We are saved by regeneration, signified and 
declared by baptism; and this regeneration, or spiritual 
life, works out and is obedient because, as Hovey says, the 
Holy Spirit produces it and preserves it, and not because 
of baptism, which only represents and confesses it. This 
is sound Baptist doctrine and absolutely foreign to the 
theory of my brother and his people, who deny the direct 
and personal operation of the Holy Spirit in regeneration — 
" the outworking and obedient life, given and preserved 
by the Holy Spirit;" and who hold that regeneration, or 
renewing of the Spirit, is only effected by the word be- 
lieved and by obedience in water, called a " birth of water 
and Spirit" — rather of water and word representing the 
Spirit. Baptists believe in regeneration or renewing 
through the Holy Spirit by the word; and they believe 
that this regeneration expresses itself in outworking and 
obedient life, in confession, baptism, and good works, just 
exactly what Hovey means. 

My opponent comes again to the subject of John bap- 
tizing (eis metanoian) unto repentance (Matt. 3: 11); but 
while he concedes that John baptized his converts because 
they repented, as in his preceding discussion, he seems not 



112 Why the Baptist Name. „ 

to be satisfied with this rendering of eis, which McGarvey, 
to his then satisfaction, made to express the " purpose " 
of John's baptism to excite repentance in order to win the 
glory of remission of sins in others than those he baptized! 
Now he comes forward with the Greek preposition peri, 
and assumes that if the inspired writer had intended to 
mean that John baptized because of repentance, he would 
have used peri instead of eis to express the idea. He cites 
Matt. 26: 28 to illustrate his position: "For this is my 
blood of the covenant, which is shed for [peri] many for 
[eis] remission of sins." But peri used after verbs of 
offering sacrifice is rendered in behalf of, on account of, 
and has precisely the same meaning as eis in Matt. 3: 11 
and in Matt. 12: 41. 

But my opponent is not satisfied with my use of Matt. 
12: 41, by which I met his challenge to the effect that un- 
less I could produce a single instance in which eis is used 
in the sense of because, my position regarding Matt. 3: 11 
was hopelessly gone; and, as in the case of Matt. 3: 11, 
he resorts to McGarvey to solve the difficulties he finds 
in rendering eis in Matt. 12: 41 to suit his theory. Noth- 
ing could be simpler or plainer than the fact stated in 
Matt. 12 : 41 — namely, that the Ninevites " repented at 
[eis] the preaching of Jonah " — on account of, because of, 
the preaching of Jonah; and while McGarvey says, " It is 
true, as a matter of fact, that the Ninevites repented in 
consequence of the preaching of Jonah," he says that if it 
had been the purpose of the writer to express this thought, 
he would have used " dia" Why not " peri," according to 
Brother Smith? But McGarvey says: "They repented into 
[eis] the preaching of Jonah " — that is, into the course 
of life required by Jonah's preaching; and while he says 
the expression " at [eis] the preaching of Jonah " does not 
develop the full idea of his rendering, " it would be diffi- 
cult to translate the passage any more accurately without 
adopting an awkward circumlocution." 

This is another strained and unwarranted effort to get 
rid of a difficulty. I find no lexicographer or commentator 
who agrees with his interpretation. They all render eis 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 113 

here in accordance ivith, conformably to, with a view to — 
that is, in the sense of because of or on account of. Dr. 
Broadus, one of the greatest Greek scholars (" Commen- 
tary on Matthew," page 277), says on Matt. 12: 41: ''The 
preposition rendered ' at ' is eis, usually rendered ' into ' 
or ' unto,' and often denoting design or aim. It cannot 
possibly have that sense here, for certainly the Ninevites 
did not repent in order that Jonah might preach. It clear- 
ly introduces the occasion or ground of repenting (Winer, 
page 397 [495]); and it may possibly have the same force 
in Matt. 3: 11 and Acts 2: 38." Dr. Broadus (page 49) 
cites the Greek commentator, Euthymius (twelfth century), 
as giving eis (Matt. 3: 11) this sense — that is, repentance 
denoting the ground or occasion of John's baptism (be 
cause of repentance) ; and he also cites Tyndale and others, 
who held that this baptism was " with reference to repent- 
ance." " Such a meaning," the Doctor says, " the preposi- 
tion [eis], with its case, does somewhat frequently have 
[as in Acts 2: 25], and that gives a very good sense (as it 
would also in Luke 3 : 3 ; Mark 1:4,' unto remission of 
sins')." In other words, Dr. Broadus not only holds that 
eis in Matt. 3: 11 and Matt. 12: 41 denotes, respectively, 
repentance as the ground of John's baptism, and the 
preaching of Jonah as the ground of Ninevite repentance, 
but that eis translated " with reference to the remission of 
sins" (aphesin hamartion) gives a very good sense, ac- 
cording to New Testament Greek usage. 

At all events, the interpretations of McGarvey, both of 
Matt. 3: 11 and Matt. 12: 41, are sophistical fictions to 
avoid difficulties in the way of a theory. No doubt the 
Ninevites did repent so as to enter into the conditions in- 
volved by Jonah's preaching; but the repentance did not 
begin until the preaching began as the occasion or cause 
of the repentance, which is evidently the plain meaning of 
the Master, who was denouncing the woes of judgment upon 
his generation for not repenting at his preaching, though 
a greater than Jonah was he. 

My opponent admits that baptism is a " certificate " and 
a " declaration," but only to the man baptized. He calls it 
8 



114 Why the Baptist Name. 

his " marriage certificate," his " certificate of union with 
Christ," because planted in the likeness of his death, he- 
cause baptized into him and so become a member of his 
body and one with him. All this might be true if his the- 
ory was true, except this, that instead of baptism becom- 
ing his marriage certificate, it is the marriage itself. Bap- 
tism is only an external symbol or declaration of our union 
with Christ by faith; and it is a marriage certificate with 
a Baptist to all the world that by faith he has been married 
to Christ. A marriage certificate is a document given 
after marriage, not to prove to ourselves that we are mar- 
ried, but to prove to the world that we are married; and 
hence my position that baptism is a declaration or cer- 
tificate of our union with Christ and of all the blessings of 
salvation secured to us through faith and witnessed with- 
in us by the Holy Spirit of promise, by whom, having be- 
lieved, we were sealed (Eph. 1: 13); and by which seal 
"the Lord knoweth them that are his" (2 Tim. 2: 19); 
and by which seal, the witness of the Holy Spirit, we 
know that we are the sons of God (Rom. 8: 16; Acts 5: 32). 
My opponent cites Abraham's offering of Isaac as an il- 
lustration of his certificate theory. "Abraham believed 
God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness" 
(Gen. 15: 6); "and he received the sign of circumcision, 
a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while 
he was in uncircumcision." (Rom. 4: 1-12.) Thus was 
Abraham justified by faith, " without works" that he might 
not have "whereof to glory." Twenty years afterwards 
God "proved" Abraham by the proposed sacrifice of his 
son, Isaac; and when the unstaggering faith of Abraham 
was demonstrated, God reiterated and emphasized, with 
an oath, the promises he had already repeatedly made to 
Abraham under his covenant of circumcision. Neither 
Abraham's fidelity in obedience nor God's assurance on 
the mountain was a certificate to Abraham of his salvation, 
but of his blessings to the world. He already had the cer- 
tificate of circumcision that he had been saved by grace, 
justified by faith, unto life eternal, "without works;" and 
the allusion of James (2: 21, 22) to Abraham's justifi- 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 115 

cation by works in offering up Isaac has no reference to 
his salvation whatever. Justification by work is only 
proof of justification by faith — " God did prove Abraham," 
already saved and circumcised and assured; and while it 
is true that Abram's " faith wrought with his works, and 
by his works was faith made perfect," it was the work of 
a man already saved by grace and justified through faith 
unto life eternal. So to every Christian thus "proved" is 
faith perfected by work; but there is not a shred of Scrip- 
true for perfecting faith in baptism and so securing the 
blessings of salvation which are alone through grace and 
justification by faith, as in Abraham's case; the proof of 
which is obedience in all things, the sign or symbol of 
which is baptism. The faith that saves — " faith unto the 
saving of the soul" (Heb. 10: 39) — is perfect for its pur- 
pose; and any addition of work or water to enhance its 
validity or efficacy is to destroy its intent, prerogative, 
and office as the sole medium of God's approach to the soul 
and of the soul's approach to God and the ground of justi- 
fication. The moment a man believes (eis) into Christ 
he is in Christ and Christ in him, his soul is united with 
God, that instant he is justified unto life eternal, regen- 
erated, saved; and there can be no continuous process be- 
yond faith in order to salvation, whatever the obedience 
required in confession, baptism, or good works, to signify 
and declare the fact. (John 5: 24.) 

Now to the salvation of Saul, which I affirm took place 
before his baptism; and in proof of the fact I will state a 
little more fully my argument heretofore presented: 

1. When he heard the voice of Jesus and saw who he 
was, Saul confessed him as " Lord" and asked, " What 
shall I do?" which is proof positive that he had believed 
and surrendered to Christ, having repented and relented, 
and was so converted. (Acts 22: 6-10.) 

2. Christ's commission of Saul, on the spot and at the 
time of his conversion, as the great apostle to the Gentiles; 
and it is utterly preposterous to suppose that such a com- 
mission should have been issued to an unconverted man. 
(Acts 26: 12-20.) 



116 Why the Baptist Name. 

3. His being sent into Damascus for further instruction, 
to be told of " all things " which were " appointed " for 
him to do (Acts 22: 10); the formal and preliminary step 
essential to the ordination of the great apostle as a " chosen 
vessel," and therefore a converted man. (Acts 9: 15, 16.) 

4. His three days of fasting and prayer, without sight 
(Acts 9: 9, 12), the acts of a converted man under the 
stress of blindness and suspense, contemplating the radical 
change and the tremendous commission imposed upon him, 
in the face of his past record and of his future conflict; 
and being thus conscious of the change and the situation, 
it was perfectly natural, as a converted Jew, to fast and 
pray and even to feel no appetite for food till relieved. 

5. The ministry of Ananias, under the instruction of 
Jesus, who laid his hands upon Saul that he might " re- 
ceive his sight and oe -filled with the Holy Spirit " — both 
of which, under the laying on of hands, took place — which 
is proof positive that Saul was a converted man; and after 
all this he arose on the spot and was baptized, took food 
and was strengthened (Acts 9: 17-19), without any expres- 
sion of emotion at that time. 

Jesus told Ananias on sending him to set apart Saul to 
the ministry, that Saul was a " chosen vessel unto him " 
to bear his name "before the Gentiles" (Acts 9: 15); and 
when Ananias came to Saul, he reiterated this great fact 
in language more elaborate (Acts 22: 14-16); and after 
laying his hands upon Saul, restoring his sight and con- 
ferring the Holy Spirit, as seen in Acts 9: 17-19, it was 
then he said: "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy 
sins." If Saul was not a converted man — justified, regen- 
erated, saved — before his baptism, then Ananias bestowed 
the gift of the Holy Spirit upon him and ordained him to 
the ministry of his apostleship by the laying on of hands 
before he was converted or saved. Such a position is ab- 
solutely preposterous; and the unanswerable logic of the 
case is that the expression, " wash away thy sins," was a 
symbolic or figurative declaration of Saul's baptism that 
his sins were already forgiven — his baptism being neces- 
sary to his public profession of Christ before the world 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 117 

and to the validity of his ministry and organic union with 
God's people. 

My opponent arrays against me the testimony of three 
Baptist scholars — Hovey, Hackett, and Willmarth — but I 
defy the scholarship of the world to overturn my argu- 
ment. I could give a thousand Baptist scholars against his 
three; but all the microscopic literalism applied by him- 
self and his three Baptist scholars to Oriental symbolism, 
which so often puts the sign for the thing signified, as in 
this case, cannot do away with the facts. The truth is that 
Hackett and Hovey, when they explain themselves, do not 
imply my opponent's interpretation at all. Hovey truly 
says that baptism may be described as a figurative wash- 
ing away of sin and so expressing forgiveness; and 
Hackett vaguely puts it when he says that baptism bears 
the importance of answering to " for the remission of 
sins," because it is " the sign of repentance and faith, 
which are the conditions of salvation." If so, the sign of 
these conditions cannot be a condition itself. The accom- 
paniment and declaration of faith and repentance, baptism, 
is the sign of remission, and so by an Orientalism is put 
for the " washing away of sins " — the sign for the thing 
signified. 

I come again to Acts 2: 38. Before taking up the argu- 
ment of my opponent, I will answer his " problem " with 
reference to the relation denoted by the copulative " and,'' 
which he says unites baptism with repentance in the pas- 
sage. I hold that the subordinate clause, " and be bap- 
tized every one of you," is parenthetical and independent 
of the sentence; and that "repent" is construed with the 
phrase, " in the name of Jesus Christ [implying faith in 
Christ] for the remission of your sins;" and that the 
parenthetical clause, to which the independent " and " be- 
longs, prospectively refers baptism to the close of the sen- 
tence as a sign and declaration of the fact of remission 
grounded in repentance and faith as parallel with Acts 10: 
43-48. In other words, baptism in Acts 2: 38 is bound to 
occupy the same place and perform the same office as in 
Acts 10: 43-48; and as in Acts 10: 43-48 baptism follows 



118 Why the Baptist Name. 

the remission of sins solely ascribed to the name of Christ 
believed upon, so in Acts 2: 38. The name of Christ be- 
lieved upon, involving prior repentance, is found alike in 
both Acts 2: 38 and Acts 10: 43-48; and the baptism com- 
manded in the parenthetical and independent clause of 
Acts 2: 38 and the baptism commanded in the subsequent 
and final sentences of Acts 10: 43-48 have precisely the 
same relation to repentance and faith as the sole ground 
of remission and perform the same function in declaring 
and symbolizing the fact. There can be no difference in 
the purport and interpretation of the two passages; and 
in all the references of the Scripture to the two events, 
they are pronounced the same in administration, meaning, 
and importance, and without distinction between Jew and 
Gentile. (Acts 10: 45-47; 11: 1-18; 15: 6-9.) 

My Brother Smith again employs against me his Baptist 
witnesses — Hackett, Harkness, Harper, and Hovey; but all 
the scholarly literalism of Oriental symbolism by means 
of grammatical construction and verbal relations, however 
microscopically applied to the letter, cannot overturn the 
deadly parallelism between Acts 2: 38 and Acts 10: 43-48. 

In his answer to my position my opponent assumes that 
in Acts 10: 43-48 salvation cannot be predicated of faith 
alone, since, if faith, as I hold, must include repentance, it 
must also include baptism for the remission of sins. I 
do not exclude baptism, but hold it strictly in its associa- 
tion with repentance and faith as the sign, but not the 
condition, of remission. He insists that in the words 
spoken by Peter whereby Cornelius and his house should 
be saved (Acts 11: 14) was included baptism; and yet in 
Peter's sermon (Acts 10: 35-43) to Cornelius and his house 
there is no hint of baptism; and he closes his sermon 
(verse 43) with these words: " To him bear all the prophets 
witness, that through his name every one that believeth on 
him shall receive remission of sins." As Peter spake these 
very words by which Cornelius and his house should be 
saved, the Holy Spirit fell upon all that heard the word, 
they spoke with tongues and magnified God — fully demon- 
strating their conversion to Christ — upon which Peter com- 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 119 

manded their baptism, without any reference to the remis- 
sion of sins by baptism. 

Again my opponent assumes that the gift of the Holy 
Spirit — speaking with tongues and magnifying God — in- 
tended simply as a sign to the Jews that the Gentiles had 
been admitted to the gospel and the kingdom, was no evi- 
dence in itself that the sins of Cornelius and his house 
had been remitted or pardoned. He says that if I could 
show the same to be such evidence, my case would be 
made out; and in order to make out my case I refer him 
to Acts 15: 7-9, in which Peter said, of this event, to the 
Jerusalem council: "Brethren, ye know that a good while 
ago God made choice among you, that by my mouth the 
Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and 'believe. 
And God, who knoweth the heart, bare them witness, giv- 
ing them the Holy Spirit, even as he did unto us; and he 
made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their 
hearts by faith." 

It could not be made clearer that Cornelius and his house, 
under the preaching of Peter, believed and were converted 
to Christ through the gospel; that God knowing the re- 
generate condition of their hearts, witnessed their faith 
by giving them the Holy Spirit, as to the disciples at Pente- 
cost; that they demonstrated the fact of their conversion, 
under spiritual influence, by speaking with tongues and 
magnifying God; and that God himself, without distinction 
between Jew and Gentile, " cleansed their hearts by faith " 
in order to his witness of the fact in giving them the 
Holy Spirit. Here is a genuine case of heart religion, 
through the cleansing of faith, under the direct operation 
of God, by means of the word believed, witnessed by the 
Holy Spirit, characterized by the ecstasy of the converts; 
and all this before they were baptized! They were disci- 
ples before baptism; for it cannot be shown that any but 
a disciple ever had "the gift of the Holy Spirit;" and it 
was in accord with the great commission, " Go ye there- 
fore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them 
into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy 
Spirit" (Matt. 28: 19), that Peter baptized Cornelius and 



120 Why the Baptist Name. 

his house. In the light of Matt. 28: 19 we interpret Mark 
16: 15, 16, another form of the great commission; and that 
part of it which says, " He that believeth and is baptized 
shall be saved," can only mean that the " saved," the dis- 
ciple having been " made," not by baptism, but by faith, 
must be baptized to declare and symbolize the fact, and so 
saved. 

I have now made out my case, and on this rock I stand 
immovable and unanswerable. Acts 10: 43-48, the last and 
most luminous and voluminous utterance of Peter upon 
the law and design of baptism — long after the day of 
Pentecost — interprets Acts 2: 38; and the theory of bap- 
tism remitting sins is utterly refuted, except in a figurative, 
symbolic, or declarative sense. Acts 15: 7-9 fully clears 
up Acts 10: 43-48 from the slightest inference of baptismal 
remission; and these passages forever take Acts 2: 38 out 
of the field of controversy on the subject. My case is made 
out according to the admission of my opponent; and hence 
there can be no further controversy regarding the design 
of baptism. It is simply the sign or symbol of sin's remis- 
sion, of regeneration, of our union with Christ, of putting 
on Christ by public profession; it is the certificate or 
declaration of salvation and its blessings; and it is the 
pledge of obligation and of allegiance to Christ and of 
our duty to walk with him in newness of life. Give me 
your hand, Brother Smith, and let us stand on this rock 
together; and henceforth let us have no more controversy 
over the fiction of baptismal regeneration or remission in 
any form. 

(See Mr. Smith's Review of the foregoing on page 280.) 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 121 



IV. 

" CAMPBELLITES COMBINE A RATIONAL- 
ISTIC FAITH WITH A RITUAL- 
ISTIC BAPTISM." 

Mr. Smith's First Review. 

The author says: "John and Peter were both Baptists 
and not Campbellites, who combine a rationalistic faith 
with a ritualistic baptism." If either John or Peter was a 
Baptist of the Dr. G. A. Lofton kind, no New Testament 
writer mentioned the fact, which certainly would have been 
done had it been a fact. Again I must plead ignorance con- 
cerning that pestiferous people whom the Doctor delights in 
calling " Campbellites," and who seem to haunt him by day 
and disturb his peaceful slumbers by night. I am absolute- 
ly certain that neither John nor Peter was a " Campbellite," 
whatever else they may have been. 

But inasmuch as it is plain that Dr. Lofton refers to 
Christians, whom he stigmatizes as " Campbellites," it be- 
comes necessary to notice what he says about their " faith " 
and " baptism." He terms their faith " rationalistic," 
which simply means one who relies wholly upon human 
reason in religion. Webster defines " rationalism : " "A 
system of opinions deduced from reason, as distinct from, 
or opposed to, revelation; an excessive deference to, or re- 
liance on, reason." Thus it may be seen that, strictly 
speaking, " rationalism " is infidelity. Any theory that 
denies a divine revelation is infidelity pure and simple; and 
if that is what the Doctor means, why did he not say so 
in plain English? He has here stated that which is abso- 
lutely untrue; and a little investigation should have con- 
vinced him of the contrary, and fairness required it. God 



122 Why the Baptist Name. 

has endowed man with reason and assigned reason her 
province — viz., to ascertain what God has revealed upon 
the great matters of salvation; and it becomes man's duty 
to believe and obey that revelation. Hence, God says to 
man: "Come now, and let us reason together." (Isa. 1: 
18.) I confess to the charge of an intelligent faith, if that 
he what Dr. Lofton means. Peter says for Christians to 
be " ready always to give answer to every man that asketh 
you a reason concerning the hope that is in you." (1 Pet. 
3: 15.) Just at this point there is a very vital difference 
between the faith of Dr. Lofton and that of those he terms 
" Campbellites." For the want of an intelligent faith the 
Baptists are led into all sorts of inconsistencies and ab- 
surdities in doctrine and practice. They teach that unim- 
mersed Methodists and Presbyterians are the children of 
God, and at the same time deny these children of God the 
right to eat at their Father's table. They teach that bap- 
tism is a " nonessential," that it has nothing whatever to 
do with one's salvation, but will not admit one to church 
membership and the Lord's table unless baptized. They 
teach that sinners are converted by the direct work of the 
Holy Spirit, and then cry loud and long in calling sinners 
to repentance! 

The Doctor also terms the baptism to which disciples 
submit a " ritualistic " baptism. Webster defines " ritual- 
ism:" "The system of rituals or prescribed forms of re- 
ligious worship." Now, if the author means to charge that 
disciples insist upon holding to the exact forms of religious 
worship as revealed in the New Testament, we plead guilty 
to the charge. Will Dr. Lofton dare change the form of 
baptism or the emblems used in celebrating the Lord's 
death? What, then, does he mean by a "ritualistic" bap- 
tism? Does he mean that those he calls "Campbellites" 
look upon baptism as possessing any virtue within itself, 
or in any way a procuring cause of salvation? If so, he 
should know better, and his ignorance on this point is piti- 
able. 

It will be observed that the Doctor persists in saying 
that "John was a thorough Baptist preacher," but a little 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 123 

proof from the Bible would suit much better than his un- 
supported assertions. John was not a Baptist preacher 
at all, but a preacher of baptism. He was a Baptist be- 
cause he baptized, but was not in any sense whatever a 
Baptist preacher. But even if he could be properly termed 
"a Baptist preacher," Dr. Lofton has not by any means 
proven that he is the same kind of a preacher that John 
was. The Doctor requires those whom he baptizes to re- 
late an experience that God, for Christ's sake, has par- 
doned their sins, before baptism, while John baptized the 
people in order that their sins might be forgiven. Again, 
he has the church to vote on their application for church 
membership. Did John do anything like that? There is 
not a single characteristic of John the Baptist that is 
peculiar to the " Baptist " Church, and the mere enumera- 
tion of the things John taught and did constitute no valid 
argument on the Doctor's side of this question. 

The author has " repentance " and " righteousness " 
of soul essential to faith. This was true with reference to 
the coming Messiah, but those to whom John preached were 
Jews who already believed in God, but were not in a con- 
dition to believe in Christ without first setting themselves 
right with God by repentance. To one who did not be- 
lieve in God, repentance was not essential to faith, but 
rather a fruit or manifestation of an existing faith. After 
the apostles entered upon their work under the great com- 
mission, the first thing they required was " faith." The 
order was : " Let all the house of Israel therefore know 
assuredly, that God hath made him both Lord and Christ, 
this Jesus whom ye crucified." (Acts 2: 36.) They be- 
lieved; and when they asked what further to do, they were 
told to "repent" and be baptized. (Verses 37, 38.) 

The Doctor calls attention to what he is pleased to term 
" the Baptist maxim " — viz. : " Blood before water, Christ 
before church, the Holy Spirit with the Word before all, 
in all, and through all." This is the way he has of saying 
that the sinner comes to the benefits of the blood of Christ 
"before" baptism, but the inspired Paul refutes the Doc- 
tor's theory: "Or are ye ignorant that all we who were 



124 Why the Baptist Name. 

baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 
We were buried therefore with him through baptism into 
death." (Rom. 6: 3, 4.) Without the death of Christ (and 
he shed his blood in his death — John 19: 33, 34) there could 
have been no salvation; and in order for the sinner to be 
saved, he must come in contact with the death of Christ, 
which the Scriptures declare is done when he is baptized 
into Christ. From this there is no escape, save by an ab- 
solute repudiation of the word of God. From his side 
came both blood and water, which God has inseparably 
united in the great scheme of redemption, and it is a dan- 
gerous thing for Dr. Lofton or any one else to disjoin them. 
" For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the 
water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." (1 
John 5:8.) No matter to what the " water" here refers, it 
is united with the " blood." I remark, however, that Adam 
Clarke and John Wesley refer the " water " here to bap- 
tism. 

The author means by "Christ before church" that sin- 
ners are converted, saved, and accepted of God before they 
come to the church of Christ. Thus he has Christ sepa- 
rated from his church, a thing flatly contradicted by the 
word of God. The church is called the "body" of Christ, 
and he is the Head of that body. "And he is the head of 
the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn 
from the dead." (Col. 1: 18.) Now, if Christ is so united 
to his church as to be its head, how could one possibly come 
to Christ without at the same time coming to his church? 
If one could reach Christ " before " reaching his church, 
then Christ must be separated from his body, the church; 
and when the body is separated from the head, it becomes 
a dead body. Thus the author would have people united 
to a dead body. This is one of the absurd predicaments 
into which Dr. Lofton's theology leads him in his efforts 
to have sinners saved before baptism. The truth is, the 
church, or body of Christ, is that great spiritual institu- 
tion of which one becomes a member by the same process 
and at the same time he or she is converted. Will the 
Doctor cite us to a single person in the New Testament that 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 125 

is said to be a child of God who was not a member of the 
church of Christ, after the church was established? 

Again, he means by the expression, " the Holy Spirit 
with the Word before all," that the Holy Spirit exerts an 
influence in conversion in addition to and distinct from 
the word. If this is not his meaning, then he was unfor- 
tunate in the selection of words to express his meaning. 
But that is Baptist doctrine, anyway, and I shall treat it 
as such. Why did not Dr. Lofton submit at least one 
passage which teaches that extra influence exerted by the 
Spirit? Certainly, if it be a Bible doctrine, there are nu- 
merous passages at hand, and it would have been but little 
trouble to incorporate just one in his statement. Abstract 
spiritual influences is to the " Baptists " and many others 
a very wholesome doctrine, but they fail to find any au- 
thority in the Bible for such doctrine. That theory robs 
the word of God of any power at all in the conversion of 
a soul, and thereby makes many passages absolutely mean- 
ingless. " Is not my word like fire? saith Jehovah; and 
like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?" (Jer. 
23: 29.) Again: "For the word of God is living, and ac- 
tive, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing 
even to the dividing of soul and spirit, of both joints and 
marrow, and quick to discern the thoughts and intents of 
th* heart." (Heb. 4: 12.) The position of the Baptists 
says : " No, there must be an additional influence exerted 
by the Holy Spirit or else the word cannot accomplish all 
this." I prefer Paul's statement to Dr. Lofton's unscrip- 
tural theory. 

But after all of Dr. Lofton's great ado about baptism, 
and his futile efforts to discount this holy ordinance, it re- 
mains an indisputable fact that no one can become a " Bap- 
tist " without it. He will not recognize an unbaptized per- 
son as a " Baptist," and this fact within itself shows him 
to be a most inconsistent man in discounting the very 
thing that made him a " Baptist." Dr. Lofton will admit 
to the communion in his church none but " Baptists," and 
only those who have been baptized are admitted; hence it 
takes the baptism to make them " Baptists." To test this 



126 Why the Baptist Name. 

point, I will ask Brother Lofton if a single one of those 
converted in the " union " meetings in which he has en- 
gaged were regarded by him and recognized by the Central 
Baptist Church as Baptists before they were baptized? If 
not, when and how did they become Baptists? They were 
" converted " in precisely the same way as those who be- 
came Methodists and Presbyterians, and it is, therefore, 
evident that they did not become Baptists at the time of 
their conversion. Now, unless the Doctor regards the 
" Baptist " Church a nonessential, he undoubtedly lays great 
stress on water; and if he does so regard his church, then 
he should cease his efforts to build up a nonessential. 

I rejoice in the truth that one can be baptized into the 
name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit 
without becoming a Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, or 
even becoming a member of either of these human insti- 
tutions, and keep every commandment God has imposed, 
and go to heaven when he dies. And for this reason, there- 
fore, every soul should refrain from becoming a member 
of any of these denominations, especially since not one of 
them can be found in God's Book. 



Dr. Lofton's First Reply. 

Brother Smith resents my proposition: "John and 
Peter were both Baptists and not Campbellites, who com- 
bine a rationalistic faith with a ritualistic baptism." And 
he charges me with imputing to his people " infidelity," on 
the one hand, and the saving efficacy of water in itself, on 
the other. Under another head in this discussion I re- 
ferred to their faith as " discursive belief " in the gospel, 
and this is all I mean by " rationalistic faith " as applied 
to them — a merely intellectual belief in Christ for salva- 
tion, without the direct impact of the Holy Spirit through 
the Word. Under the same head I distinctly said that they 
do not teach that there is virtue in water itself to save, 
but that they do teach that baptism in water, through faith, 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 127 

is the means, or medium, of salvation, which is a form of 
ritualism — that is, salvation by means of a rite, instead of 
by faith alone. Campbellism is not infidel rationalism nor 
Roman ritualism, but it is discursively rationalistic in sav- 
ing faith and mediumistically ritualistic in saving bap- 
tism. 

I have no fight with my opponent as to the province of 
reason in reaching a belief of the truth. I agree with him 
in reference to Isa. 1: 18 and 1 Pet. 3: 15 — namely, that 
God may " reason together " with his people and that his 
people should be able " to give a reason for the hope that 
is in them;" but in case of the "natural man," all is 
" foolishness " to him until a divinely wrought faith is 
able to take reason upon its back and walk into the mys- 
teries and blessings of salvation (1 Cor. 2: 14) in the light 
of God's Word. Claiming all illumination for himself and 
his people, however, my Brother Smith charges that Bap- 
tists, for want of intelligent faith, " are led into all sorts 
of inconsistencies and absurdities in doctrine and practice." 
We do believe that " unimmersed Methodists and Presbyte- 
rians are the children of God," and so fraternize and co- 
operate with them in every good word and work in the 
realm of moral or spiritual Christianity in which we agree; 
but in the realm of the positive and organic forms of 
Christianity, in which we do not agree, we part company, 
while we shake hands across the fence of our differences 
along moral or spiritual lines. Immersion and scriptural 
church relations, as well as faith, are prerequisites to the 
Lord's Supper with Baptists; and we think this is not only 
scriptural, but far preferable to the Campbellite practice 
of inviting, indiscriminately, to the " Father's table " those 
they claim are unconverted and unbaptized sinners and 
doomed to hell! 1 Cor. 11: 28 has no application except 
to the members of the church at Corinth who had been 
eating the Lord's Supper unworthily; and it cannot apply, 
indiscriminately, to people we know, or claim, to be un- 
converted and unbaptized. This is a travesty of the Lord's 
table according to the Lord's law put in our keeping. (2 
Thess. 3: 6.) 



128 Why the Baptist Name. 

Baptists do not teach that " baptism is a nonessential" 
but absolutely essential for its purpose — namely, the sym- 
bolization of our salvation, the declaration of our faith, a 
condition of visible entrance into the kingdom, and the 
bond of obligation, the oath of allegiance, to every one 
that so puts on Christ in profession. Baptism, however, 
is not essential to salvation; salvation is essential to bap- 
tism. We confess to the charge that we " teach that sin- 
ners are converted by the direct work of the Holy Spirit," 
but by means of the Word, for Paul says that God (Eph. 
2: 5), "even when we were dead through our trespasses, 
made us alive together with Christ." We confess also that 
we do " cry loud and long," nevertheless, " in calling sin- 
ners to repent;" for God, who works by means for the sal- 
vation of men, commands us to " cry aloud and spare not." 

My opponent demurs strenuously to my assertion that 
"John was a thorough Baptist preacher," and asserts 
that "John was not a Baptist preacher, but a preacher of 
baptism." But he was called " the Baptist," and he 
preached; therefore, he was a BAPTIST PREACHER. He 
assumes, however, that if John could be properly termed a 
" Baptist preacher," I have not proven that I am the same 
kind of a preacher that John was. Brother Smith says 
that I require (1) an experience of grace of those I bap- 
tize, while John baptized in order to the forgiveness of 
sins; that I require (2) a vote of the church in order to 
church membership, and John did not; and he concludes 
(3) that there is not a single characteristic of John peculiar 
to the Baptist Church, and that my enumeration of things 
taught and did by John is no valid argument in favor of 
my position that John was a thorough Baptist preacher. 

I reply (1) that John required a confession of sins, 
which included repentance and faith, and which is the same 
as my " experience of grace," in order to baptism, and not 
in order to the remission of sins, as I have shown; (2) 
there was no church, at the time of John, to require a vote 
in order to membership; and (3) I have shown under head 
(1) a "single characteristic" of John the Baptist peculiar 
to the Baptist Church. My enumeration of the things John 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 129 

taught and did: His preaching of "baptism unto [or on 
account of] repentance " and of the " baptism of repentance 
unto [in order to] remission of sins;" his requirement of 
" fruits worthy of repentance " and " righteousness of soul," 
before baptism, essential to faith in Christ to come; his 
practice of immersion, the symbol of sin washed away, of 
regeneration, and of union with Christ in his death, burial, 
and resurrection; his fundamental doctrine of the atoning 
Christ as the " Lamb of God " who was " to take away the 
sin of the world;" his teaching of practical godliness as 
the evidence of repentance and faith in order to baptism 
and entrance into the kingdom at hand — all this is charac- 
teristic of the Baptists, who follow John in " the things he 
taught and did." 

My opponent agrees with me that " repentance " and 
" righteousness of soul " were essential to faith with ref- 
erence to the coming Messiah; but he says the Jews to 
whom John preached " already believed in God, but were 
not in a condition to believe in Christ without first setting 
themselves right with God by repentance." Yes, but John 
preached repentance toward God in connection with faith 
toward Christ to come; and there could be no such thing 
as forgiveness of sins upon repentance, except as based 
upon faith in Christ, the Author of forgiveness, as well as 
the ground of all repentance and faith. Believing in God, 
without Christ, is not gospel or evangelical faith at all. 
Brother Smith says: "To one who did not believe in God, 
repentance was not essential to faith, but rather the fruit 
or manifestation of an existing faith." The man who does 
not believe in God must be convicted of sin, of righteous- 
ness, and of judgment by the Holy Spirit, through the 
Word, just as any other sinner (John 16: 8-11); and when 
he is so convicted, by a belief of the truth, he will repent 
of sin and trust in Christ for salvation — and so believe in 
God. 

I am cited to Acts 2: 36: "Let all the house of Israel 
therefore know assuredly, that God hath made him both 
Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom ye crucified." My op- 
ponent adds: "They believed; and when they asked what 
9 



130 Why the Baptist Name. 

further to do, they were told to ■ repent ' and be baptized." 
(Verses 37, 38.) " This," says my opponent, " was after 
the apostles entered upon their work under the great com- 
mission, and the first thing they required was faith;" and 
his implication is that, at Pentecost, the order was changed 
from repentance and faith to faith and repentance. No 
doubt the convicted multitude at Pentecost did first be- 
lieve the truth; but they repented and trusted christ in 
order to the remission of their sins, and were baptized in 
token of the fact, as at Caesarea. (Acts 10: 43-47.) The 
order never was changed, as Paul shows in Acts 20: 21, 22, 
where he says: "Testifying both to Jews and to Greeks 
repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus 
Christ " — the same gospel that John the Baptist and Jesus 
and his disciples taught before the day of Pentecost. (See 
also Acts 3: 19.) 

My opponent assails sharply my Baptist maxim : " Blood 
before water, Christ before church, the Holy Spirit 
with the Word before all, in all, and through all." He 
takes three exceptions to this maxim: (1) That it brings 
the sinner to the benefits of the blood of Christ "before" 
baptism; (2) that it separates Christ from his church; (3) 
that it requires the Holy Spirit to exert an influence in 
conversion in addition to and distinct from the Word. 

(1) Then he cites me to Rom. 6: 3, 4: "Or are ye igno- 
rant that all we who have been baptized into Jesus Christ 
were baptized into his death? " As I have shown already, 
our union with Christ in his death is secured by faith, and 
the fact is symbolized and declared by our baptism, which 
represents us as having already died to sin, as being buried 
because dead, and as being raised up to walk in newness 
of life because already alive to God by the resurrection of 
Christ. Baptism does not bury the sinner into his own 
death to sin in order to raise him alive to God. This is 
contrary to death, burial, and resurrection analogy. The 
sinner reaches the benefits of Christ's blood through justi- 
fication by faith (Rom. 5: 1-11); and he is symbolically 
baptized into Christ's death, and therefore buried with him 
into death, in order to declare his union with Christ in 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 131 

his death, burial, and resurrection, through faith, of which 
baptism is the " likeness." I agree with my opponent on 
1 John 5 : 8 : " For there are three who bear witness, the 
Spirit, the water, and the blood: and these three agree in 
one." But John is here showing that these three witnesses 
testify of Christ, who came in water baptism, who shed his 
blood on the cross, and who was anointed, supported, and 
raised up by the Holy Spirit. Baptism is one of these 
witnesses which symbolizes his death, burial, and resur- 
rection; and I glory in the testimony of this witness, as 
in that of the other witnesses of Christ. I do not " dis- 
join " these witnesses at all. 

(2) My opponent charges against the Baptist maxim 
that " Christ before church " means that " sinners are con- 
verted, saved, and accepted of God before they come to the 
church of Christ;" and that I thus separate Christ from 
his church — the head from the body — and so flatly contra- 
dict the Word of God. " The church," he says, " is the 
body of Christ;" and he cites me to Col. 1: 18: "And he is 
the head of the body, the church," etc. He might have 
cited also Eph. 1: 22, 23; Heb. 12: 23; John 3: 3-5; and 
other passages. Christ is the " Head over all things " to 
the universal, spiritual church, " which is his body, the 
fullness of him that filleth all;" and it takes this whole 
spiritual church, his " fullness,'" to constitute his " body " 
of which he is " Head." Every one " born anew " is first 
united to Christ, by faith, and thus to his body, or church 
universal, which is the "kingdom of God;" and our en- 
trance into this kingdom is signified by baptism, which also 
visibly admits us into the individual church which is a 
type of the whole, a " concrete exhibition of the idea of the 
whole," and so called (1 Cor. 12: 2) : " The body of Christ, 
and severally members thereof." We may be united to 
Christ and his great spiritual body by faith, in the desert, 
where there is no water, and symbolize the union by bap- 
tism afterwards, or when we enter the individual church, 
the type of the universal body; but we are in Christ, the 
Head, and in his spiritual church, when we believe. The 
eunuch was not baptized in token of his immediate union 



132 Why the Baptist Name. 

or relationship with any local body, and so of thousands 
since; but he was united to Christ and his general body 
by faith, and after his confession of faith he was baptized 
in token of the fact. Christ is not separated from his spir- 
itual body because one who comes to Christ does not " at 
the same time " come to one of his local bodies which is 
often mixed with unconverted material, baptized, and sel- 
dom wholly a spiritual body. Baptism is not a sacramental 
medium through which we are born of God into the indi- 
vidual church as a corporate medium of redemption, and 
out of which there is no salvation. This is Romanism, 
simple and pure. 

Baptism is a prerequisite to church relationship and 
communion in Christ's local body; but union with Christ 
and his spiritual body, as symbolized by baptism, must 
come before union with the local bodies, according to the 
Scriptures. At Pentecost and afterwards the Lord added 
unto them (the local church) " those who were saved " (see 
American Standard Version, Old and New Testaments) and 
"baptized" already; and at Caesarea, likewise, those who 
were saved and afterwards baptized were doubtless so 
added to the local church. Many who have been converted 
and baptized, or not baptized, never had an opportunity 
to unite with a local church. 

(3) My opponent says that my expression, "The Holy 
Spirit, with the Word, before all," means " that the Holy 
Spirit exerts an influence, in conversion, in addition to, 
and distinct from, the Word." I mean that the Holy Spirit 
who inspired the Word, beforehand, accompanies the Word 
and so employs it, through direct operation, that he de- 
velops, in the sinner, conviction, repentance, and faith 
which lead to salvation through Christ; but I do not hold 
that his influence in conversion is in addition to, as dis- 
tinct from, the Word, but " with the Word." I know noth- 
ing of abstract spiritual influences, whether by the Spirit 
alone or by the Word alone; and I hold that the Spirit 
never acts apart from, nor independent of, the Word in 
the conversion of a sinner. I grant the Word of God is 
mighty as an instrument in the hands of the Holy Spirit; 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 133 

but while it may make the dry bones rattle, come together, 
and take bodily shape, it takes the breath of the Spirit to 
put life in the body still dead. (Ezek. 37: 11-14). The 
Word of God is the " sword of the Spirit;" and only as it is 
wielded in the hand of the Spirit is it " like fire " or " like 
a hammer that breaketh the rock to pieces," or is it " living 
and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and 
piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, of both 
joints and marrow, and quick to discern the thoughts and 
intents of the heart." (Heb. 4: 12.) 

The office of the Holy Spirit is to " convict the world in 
respect of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment" 
(John 16: 8); and when Paul preached to Lydia, the 
Lord opened her heart " to give heed unto the things [the 
Word] which were spoken by Paul." (Acts 16: 14.) The 
mighty work of the Spirit, through the Word, is the new 
birth of the soul; and this work is compared, in its sov- 
ereignty and mystery, to the " wind " that " bloweth where 
it will, and thou hearest the voice thereof, but knoweth 
not whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every 
one that is born of the Spirit." (John 3: 8.) " Even when 
we were dead in trespasses," God, through his Spirit, " made 
us alive together with Christ" — being saved by grace 
through faith (Eph. 2: 5). "The natural man receiveth 
not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolish- 
ness unto him; and he cannot know them, because they are 
spiritually judged." (1 Cor. 2: 14.) "No man can say, 
Jesus is Lord, but in the Holy Spirit." (1 Cor. 12: 3.) 
" The world [as such] cannot receive" the Spirit (John 14: 
17) until convicted and converted by the Spirit, through 
the Word. 

If the Christian must have the Spirit to know and teach 
and do the word and the work of God, how much more 
does the dead sinner need the enlightening and quickening 
power of the Spirit, through the Word, which is otherwise 
"foolishness" to him! 

I have not " discounted " baptism, as my opponent 
charges; but I have exalted it as the sublime symbol of 
our religion and held it in its place, as such, without mak- 



134 Why the Baptist Name. 

ing a savior of it, as Brother Smith does. I admit that no 
one can become a Baptist, nominally or outwardly, " with- 
out baptism;" but it takes more than baptism to make a 
Baptist. My opponent asks me when and how the converts 
in our " union meetings " — some of them — become Bap- 
tists. I reply that those who joined the Central Baptist 
Church professed faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and belief 
in the fundamental principles and practices of the gospel 
for which Baptists stand, and so were baptized. By con- 
viction and persuasion they were Baptists inwardly be- 
fore they were Baptists outwardly. Baptism alone does 
not make a Baptist. It is but the crowning act in which 
a declaration of faith in Christ is made; in which submis- 
sion to Christ and his gospel is signified and pledged, as 
Baptists hold. With Baptists, baptism is nothing without 
all else; with Campbellites, all else is nothing without bap- 
tism. The Baptist is born before he is washed and named, 
and he knows nothing of being born and named through 
baptism. Circumcision, which pointed forward to a new 
heart, availed nothing without the new heart; and baptism, 
which points back to a new heart, avails nothing without 
the new heart. The word " Baptist " is an empty name 
without prior conversion and submission to Christ and to 
gospel order, polity, and principles. One must become a 
Baptist at heart before he becomes a Baptist in name; 
but baptism is absolutely essential to that name, because 
baptism represents, or symbolizes, everything for which 
Baptists stand. 

As I have said before, Baptists know nothing about " non- 
essentials." Everything Christ has taught is essential for 
its purpose; but baptism is not a savior, nor is a Baptist 
Church the corporate medium of redemption. I do lay 
" great stress " on baptism as the symbol of salvation and 
its blessings and as the declaration of our faith in Christ; 
and, likewise, I lay " great stress " on the Baptist Church 
— not as a "nonessential," but as the organic embodiment 
of baptized believers, maintaining gospel order, principles, 
and practices, and seeking to promote the kingdom of God 
accordingly, and to the uttermost part of the earth. 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 135 

My brother closes his article, rejoicing that he can be 
baptized into the name of the Trinity without becoming 
Baptist or Pedobaptist, and so keep all the commandments 
of God and get to heaven at last; and for this reason he 
says that every soul should refrain from membership in 
these " human " denominations, since not one of them can 
be found in God's book. This is egregiously egotistic and 
presumptuous in behalf of a denomination which has but 
recently celebrated its first centenary. What of all the Chris- 
tian world before and since Alexander Campbell? And 
how much better Christians to-day are Brother Smith and 
his people than millions of pious and godly Baptists and 
other people? It is rather dangerous to consign people to 
hell for want of proper baptism, if we show no better record 
of Christian life and character than those we send to hell, 
according to our interpretation of the gospel. 



Mr. Smith's Second Review. 

Our brother seeks to modify the charge that those he 
calls " Campbellites " have a " rationalistic " faith and a 
" ritualistic " baptism, but he makes no improvement in his 
efforts to represent the faith and practice of those concern- 
ing whom he thus speaks. To say that our faith in Christ 
is nothing more than an intellectual belief in him is to 
misrepresent us as much as to say we have no faith at 
all, and to intimate that we teach there is any virtue what- 
ever in the water of baptism, even with faith, is to mis- 
represent us as much as to say that we believe in the 
virtue of water alone to save. Now what are the facts in 
the case? Simply these: We believe that the faith which 
brings us to Christ and into salvation involves and influ- 
ences not only the intellect, but the whole heart, its affec- 
tions, desires, and purposes, and that baptism must be an 
expression of this whole-hearted faith. Neither faith, re- 
pentance, nor baptism have any saving virtue, but are sim- 
ply conditions or acts of obedience appointed by divine 



136 Why the Baptist Name. 

wisdom with which the sinner must comply in order to 
reach the blood of Christ, which is the procuring cause of 
salvation, and in which alone there is virtue. Faith with 
all the heart leads to repentance and embodies itself in 
the act of baptism, at which time the sinner puts on 
Christ. " For as many of you as were baptized into Christ 
did put on Christ." (Gal. 3: 27.) And: " In whom we have 
our redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our 
trespasses, according to the riches of his grace." (Eph. 
1: 7.) So Dr. Lofton will have to continue modifying his 
statement of our faith and practice, and we think that in 
justice to himself he should retract what he has said on 
this point. He confuses the work of the Spirit by saying: 
" Without the direct impact of the Holy Spirit, through the 
Word." In what sense does he use the term direct? Does 
he mean by the use of this word that the Spirit operates 
directly or immediately with reference to time, or that 
he so acts with reference to medium? If he means neither, 
but that the Spirit exerts an influence in addition to that 
resident in the word, I deny it and call for proof from the 
word of God and not human feelings. The Scriptures 
teach: " So belief cometh of hearing, and hearing by the 
word of Christ" (Rom. 10: 17) — without one word of the 
Doctor's " direct impact of the Holy Spirit " theory. My 
friend says: " I have no fight with my opponent as to the 
province of reason in reaching a belief of the truth." Then 
intellect does play a part in the salvation of responsible 
beings, and it is because of this fact that God holds us ac- 
countable for the proper exercise of our minds. You may 
call it " intellectual faith," if you so desire, but the Bible 
calls for an intelligent faith that will not lead us to rec- 
ognize certain people as children of God even to the extent 
of " fraternizing " and " cooperating " with them " in every 
good word and work in the realm of moral and spiritual 
Christianity, in which we agree," while at the same time 
denying those same " children of God " a place with us at 
their Father's table! I know this is an inconsistency in 
the faith and practice of the Baptists which they cannot 
explain in the light of an intelligent faith. No amount of 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 137 

sophistical reasoning on the subject concerning " the realm 
of positive and organic forms of Christianity " will relieve 
Dr. Lofton of this embarrassing situation in which he is 
placed for the lack of an intelligent faith. His faith leads 
him to assign the " positive and organic forms of Christian- 
ity," which he says are nonessential to salvation, to a place 
above "the realm of moral or spiritual Christianity!" He 
seeks to offset my arraignment of his practice in this mat- 
ter by saying it is " far preferable to the Campbellite prac- 
tice of inviting, indiscriminately, to the Father's table those 
they claim are unconverted and unbaptized sinners and 
doomed to hell." With reference to this statement I re- 
mark: (1) We do not invite any one to the " Father's table," 
" indiscriminately " or otherwise, for it is not our province 
to do this. It is the Father's table, and we are only too 
glad to be invited by him to sit at his table; and if any 
should partake of the Supper who have no right, it is a 
matter entirely between them and God. (2) We do not 
" doom to hell " the pious unimmersed or any one else, but 
do say that only those who have been immersed upon a 
confession of their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ have the 
promise of salvation, and give as a reason the words of 
Jesus Christ, who said : " He that believeth and is baptized 
shall be saved." (Mark 16: 16.) (3) Since the Baptists 
will not let Methodists and Presbyterians partake of the 
Lord's Supper with them, is it not an evidence that they 
believe that Methodists and Presbyterians are sinning in 
eating the Lord's Supper? Will the Doctor answer un- 
equivocally what he thinks will become of these sinning 
Methodists and Presbyterians who thus pollute the sacred 
ordinance of the Lord's Supper which they are not worthy 
to eat with the Baptists? 

Dr. Lofton says: "Baptism, however, is not essential to 
salvation; salvation is essential to baptism." By the side 
of this statement I will place the following: "When the 
long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while 
the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, 
were saved through water: which also after a true like- 
ness doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting 



138 Why the Baptist Name. 

away of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a 
good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of 
Jesus Christ." (1 Pet. 3: 20, 21.) Here it is distinctly 
said we are saved by baptism, notwithstanding Dr. Lofton 
to the contrary. Like as the waters of the flood bore or 
translated the ark, in which Noah and his family were, over 
into the new world, a place of safety from the world then 
being destroyed, so does baptism translate us from the 
kingdom of Satan over into the kingdom of God's dear 
Son. (Col. 1: 12, 13.) To show that I am in good com- 
pany, I will present the following from Alvah Hovey, the 
great Baptist, in his comment on this passage: "Baptism, 
therefore, saves, because it stands for and means genuine 
reliance, for the first time, upon the mercy of God in Christ, 
and, indeed, an earnest request for pardon; it expresses 
the act of the soul in turning to God, committing itself to 
God, and seeking his grace." (" Commentary on John," 
Appendix, page 421.) James W. Willmarth, another Bap- 
tist, says: "In this remarkable passage it is positively as- 
serted that, in some sense, baptism saves us; and in that 
same sense it must, of course, be related to the remission of 
our sins." ("Baptism and Remission," in Baptist Quar- 
terly, July, 1877, page 311.) Albert Barnes, the great Pres- 
byterian scholar, says on this passage: " It may be said to 
save us, not as a meritorious cause, but as the indispensable 
condition of salvation." ("Notes," on 1 Pet. 3: 21.) 

The Doctor has had much to say about " reliance " and 
" saving faith," to all of which I agree, our difference being 
as to the time or point at which faith assumes that degree 
of reliance necessary to make it a saving faith from past 
sins. Brother Lofton's able and scholarly brother, Alvah 
Hovey, as well as Albert Barnes, one of the ablest Presby- 
terians that ever lived, sustains me by saying we are saved 
by baptism. Hovey says baptism means " genuine reliance, 
for the first time, upon the mercy of God in Christ, and is, 
indeed, an earnest request for pardon; it expresses the act 
of the soul in turning to God, committing itself to God, and 
seeking his grace." Brother Lofton, is this " Campbell- 
ism?" If so, remember who taught it. He says: "We 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 139 

confess to the charge that we ' teach that sinners are con- 
verted by the direct work of the Holy Spirit,' but by means 
of the Word, for Paul says that God, ' even when we were 
dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with 
Christ.'" (Eph. 2: 5.) He should know that the word 
death means separation, and that in this passage it is used 
"metaphorically" to express the fact that the Ephesians 
before their conversion were separated from God " spirit- 
ually," and not in a condition in which they could not 
exercise faith and repentance without an extra influence of 
the Holy Spirit in addition to that resident in the word. 
The passage simply says that they were " made alive," 
and the Doctor assumes that it must have been done by a 
direct work of the Spirit because they were " dead in tres- 
passes." Paul says that the gospel is " the power of God 
unto salvation to every one that believeth" (Rom. 1: 16), 
and he says that " faith cometh of hearing . . . the 
word of God" (Rom. 10: 17). The power to make alive is 
in the gospel, and this power becomes effective or operative 
when the sinner oelieves the gospel and the Scriptures 
teach that the sinner is made a believer through the in- 
strumentality of the word. So the Doctor has to read into 
the passage his theory of " the direct work of the Spirit." 
He thinks he has made out his case in the following: " The 
office of the Holy Spirit is to ' convict the world of sin, and 
of righteousness, and of judgment' (John 16: 8) ; and when 
Paul preached to Lydia, the Lord opened her heart ' to give 
heed unto the things [the word] which were spoken by 
Paul' (Acts 16: 14)." Here again our brother draws on 
his imagination and assumes because it is said that God 
opened Lydia's heart that it must have been done by the 
direct operation of the Spirit. To sustain himself, he 
would have to adduce Bible proof to the effect that God 
could not have opened Lydia's heart in any other way than 
by a direct work of the Spirit, since the passage does not 
state that he did it in that way. Now let us examine tfhe 
passage and see whether or not it sustains my friend's 
position. "And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of 
purple, of the city of Thyatira, one that worshiped God, 



140 Why the Baptist Name. 

heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, to give heed unto 
the things which were spoken by Paul." (Acts 16: 14.) 
The verse preceding this states that a prayer meeting was 
in progress, and that Paul " spake unto the women that 
were come together," among whom was Lydia. Now note 
(1) that Lydia was a worshiper of God to begin with, and 
not an unbeliever in God; (2) she heard Paul's preaching 
of the word; (3) the Lord opened her heart. What she 
needed was not faith in God nor repentance, because she 
was already a worshiper of God, but faith in Christ and 
to be baptized into him. Now what is there in this record 
to indicate that God used any other means than the word 
Paul preached in opening Lydia's heart? Is not the ex- 
pression, " The Lord opened her heart," simply a state- 
ment of the results of Paul's preaching in expanding or en- 
larging her mind regarding the requirements of the gospel, 
and not to an extra power enabling her to believe and re- 
pent? The context demands this view, for the opening of 
her heart had no reference to anything else than " to give 
heed unto [that is, obey] the things which were spoken by 
Paul." When a principal acts through an agent, what that 
agent does may be properly attributed to the principal him- 
self. Therefore, in the light of this fact and what Paul 
says of his commission, which was " to open their eyes 
[mind or heart], that they may turn from darkness to 
light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they 
may receive remission of sins," etc. (Acts 26: 18), the ex- 
pression, " the Lord opened her heart," simply means that 
he did it through the preaching of Paul, and not by an ad- 
ditional influence exerted by a "direct impact" of the 
Holy Spirit. 

My opponent thinks because John was a preacher of bap- 
tism, that, therefore, he was a " Baptist " preacher. Well, 
was not John a preacher of repentance? If he was a Bap- 
tist preacher because he was a preacher of baptism, was 
he not also a repentance preacher because he preached re- 
pentance? Why single out one thing John preached and 
make that a descriptive or proper name to the exclusion 
of the rest? I still insist that Dr. Lofton is not the same 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 141 

kind of a preacher that John was, and shall prove it by the 
Doctor himself. He says that "John required a confession 
of sins " of those whom he baptized, but this is exactly the 
opposite of what the Doctor requires of those whom he 
baptizes. I do not say that he baptizes people without 
faith and repentance; but when he baptizes them, he re- 
quires them to confess that " God for Christ's sake has 
forgiven their sins." Again, he has the church to vote as 
to whether those applying for baptism shall be admitted 
to the ordinance. Did John do this with reference to those 
he baptized? In order to meet this, he says: "There was 
no church, at the time of John, to require a vote in order 
to membership." Well, since John, whom the Doctor says 
" established the fundamental principle of believers' bap- 
tism," did not " establish " the prequisites of an " experience 
of grace " and a vote by those already baptized to baptism, 
and since he cannot find where any apostle after the 
church was established did such a thing, by what authority 
does he do it? Our brother admits that " repentance " un- 
der the preaching of the apostles is a " fruit of faith " by 
the following: " The man who does not believe in God must 
be convicted of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment by 
the Holy Spirit, through the word, just as any other sinner 
(John 16: 8-11); and when he is so convicted, by a belief 
of the truth, he will repent of sin and trust in Christ for 
salvation, and so believe in God." This is all I claim with 
reference to the position of faith in the scheme of salvation. 
Faith is a principle of growth; hence Paul, writing to 
Christians, said: "Your faith groweth exceedingly." (2 
Thess. 1: 3.) There is a degree of faith that leads the 
sinner to repentance, but faith does not stop at this; grow- 
ing and increasing, it resolves itself into a trust of com- 
mittal in oaptism and continues to grow so long as we util- 
ize the means of grace for the perfection of the Christian 
character. The gospel order is fully set out in Acts 2: 36- 
38, which contain the conditions of salvation from past 
sins. The Doctor asserts that the sinner reaches the ben- 
efits of the blood by faith (Rom. 5: 1-11), and is then 
" symbolically baptized into Christ's death." Why does he 



142 Why the Baptist Name. 

not read something from the New Testament about bap- 
tism " symbolically " putting us into Christ? The passages 
he cites do not say that we are justified by faith alone, and 
Dr. Lofton should not thus pervert them. As I have said, 
salvation from beginning to end is predicated of faith, but 
never of faith alone. James positively says: "For as the 
body apart from the spirit is dead, even so faith apart from 
works is dead." (James 2: 26.) The Doctor will doubt- 
less say that James has reference to the salvation in heaven 
of those justified from past sins, and not to those coming to 
Christ. He cannot prove this; but suppose he could, then 
what? Is not faith without works or obedience as dead at 
one place as another? James is laying down a general 
principle, which applies to faith anywhere and at any time, 
whether in connection with a sinner coming to Christ or 
one justified from past sins and trying to get to heaven. 
Does faith embracing overt acts of obedience in salvation 
from past sins militate against " salvation by grace," any 
more than faith embracing acts of obedience looking to 
salvation in heaven militates against " salvation by grace? " 
Faith alone does not bring us into the merits or benefits 
of the death or blood of Christ, but by faith we are bap- 
tized into his death. (Rom. 6: 3, 4.) Hence, I repeat my 
assertion that Dr. Lofton's theory has people saved apart 
from the death or blood of Christ. My friend's theory does 
separate Christ, the Head, from his body, the church, in 
that he has them saved before they reach the church. One 
cannot be saved without being in Christ, and he cannot be 
in Christ without being in his body, which is the church. 
(Col. 1: 18-24; Eph. 5: 23.) 

My friend says : " The eunuch was not baptized in token 
of his immediate union or relationship with any local 
body." He might have added, " and neither was any one 
else so baptized by divine authority." No one scripturally 
baptized is ever baptized into a " local body " or church, 
but into the one spiritual body or church of Christ. (1 
Cor. 12: 13.) Dr. Lofton dogmatically asserts: "Baptism 
is a prerequisite to church relationship and communion in 
Christ's local body; but union with Christ and his spiritual 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 143 

body, as symbolized by baptism, must come before union 
with the local bodies, according to the Scriptures." As 
proof of this, he says: "At Pentecost and afterwards the 
Lord added unto them (the local church) ' those who were 
saved ' and ' baptized ' already." The " local church," as 
he terms it, was the whole spiritual body (he has no other 
kind) of Christ on earth at that time; but as congregations 
and even scattered disciples multiplied, it took them all 
combined to constitute the body of Christ. The eunuch 
on the highway was baptized into the body of Christ with 
no " local church " near, and had as much right then to 
eat the Lord's Supper as he would as a member of a " local 
church." Baptism could not make one a member of a 
" local church," unless it were the only church or all of the 
body of Christ on earth. Furthermore, the same things 
that constitute one a child of God do at the same time con- 
stitute him or her a member of the church or body of 
Christ, and entitled to all the privileges of the local con- 
gregation, wherever such a one may be. Our brother lays 
much stress in his contention for the " direct impact " of 
the Spirit in conversion on the fact as he says: " The nat- 
ural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for 
they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know them, 
for they are spiritually judged." (1 Cor. 2: 14.) The 
trouble with my friend here is that he does not know to 
whom Paul refers by the words " natural man." The Doc- 
tor thinks Paul is writing about conversion, and that the 
" natural man " is the unconverted man, whereas, as a mat- 
ter of fact, he is doing no such thing. He is writing about 
the manner in which God revealed the gospel to the world, 
showing that it was done by men inspired for that purpose, 
and not through or by the uninspired or natural man — that 
is, a man without spiritual qualification for receiving rev- 
elations from God. I will ask the reader to note carefully 
the context beginning with 1 Cor. 2: 1 and closing with 
the sixteenth verse. According to the Doctor's view of the 
passage, a sinner never could be converted; for if the sin- 
ner must receive the " direct impact " of the Spirit in 
order to be converted, and " the things of the Spirit " here 



144 Why the Baptist Name. 

mean this impact, and the " natural man," being a sinner, 
cannot receive the things of the Spirit, how, then, can he 
be converted? 

Dr. Lofton says : " Baptism alone does not make a Bap- 
tist." Well, there are none recognized and fellowshiped by 
Dr. Lofton as " Baptists " who have not been baptized, and 
there are thousands of such whom he calls " Christians, 
children of God," and, according to his own statement, they 
are debarred from fellowship upon the ground that they 
have not been baptized. As these who have not been bap- 
tized are " children of God," but not " Baptists," but become, 
as soon as baptized by Dr. Lofton, " Baptists," if the bap- 
tism did not make them " Baptists," what did? I see no 
escape for my friend from the charge of laying great stress 
on water! He makes water stand between thousands upon 
top of thousands of those whom he says are " God's chil- 
dren " and a place at their Father's table, and yet accuses 
me of believing too much in water! 

Yes, I do rejoice in the fact with all of my heart that I 
can believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, repent of my sins, 
and be baptized into the name of the Father and of the 
Son and of the Holy Spirit, and keep every command God 
has imposed on me, die and go to heaven at last, without 
being a member of the Baptist Church or any other church 
wearing a sectarian name. Brother Lofton will not call 
this in question, either, for he knows the very moment he 
does it he virtually says the Baptist Church with the rest 
of the denominations are essential to salvation. Then why 
should I or any one else become a member of and help to 
build up religious institutions that serve to divide, and per- 
petuate sinful divisions among the professed children of 
God? 



Dr. Lofton's Second Reply. 

I certainly do not wish to misrepresent my opponent in 
the nature and character of his faith and baptism from 
the rationalistic and ritualistic standpoint. The sinner 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 145 

being " dead through trespasses and sins " and the " nat- 
ural man " unable of himself to discern spiritual things — 
the office of the Holy Spirit being that of convicting the 
world of sin and of quickening the dead from sin — I 
cannot understand how a discursive belief of the word 
alone and apart from the convicting and quickening power 
of the Holy Spirit can produce saving repentance and 
faith, or " faith unto the saving of the soul " (Heb. 10: 39) ; 
and while I do not charge my brother with holding to 
the efficacy of water in itself to save, he does make it 
essential to the validity of faith and the medium or con- 
dition of salvation. He truly says that " neither faith, 
repentance, nor baptism has any saving virtue " — that the 
blood of Christ, which is the procuring cause of salvation, 
alone possesses virtue; but he confounds repentance and 
faith, which are the only essential medium of salvation 
through the blood, with baptism, which is only an external 
" expression " or symbol of the internal washing of the 
blood, and not a condition of its operation at all, nor a 
condition of the operative validity of " faith unto the sav- 
ing of the soul." 

My opponent asks in what sense do I mean the " direct 
impact'' of the Spirit through the word. I mean that the 
Spirit so accompanies the word and moves upon the soul 
as to secure conviction of sin and to develop saving re- 
pentance and faith. In this way God puts his laws upon 
the heart and writes them into the mind. (Heb. 8: 10; 
9: 16.) Paul plants and Apollos waters, but God gives the 
increase. (1 Cor. 3: 6, 7.) How the Spirit operates upon 
the soul by means of his word, I do not know; but there 
is nothing plainer or more common in the Scriptures, both 
of the Old and New Testaments, than the direct operation 
of God's Spirit upon the mind and heart of men. Evidently 
the Lord opened the heart of Lydia " to give heed unto the 
things [the word] which were spoken by Paul" (Acts 16: 
14) ; and all the sophistry in the world can never make it 
appear that God's word simply opened the heart of Lydia 
to heed God's word. 

Certainly intellect does play a part in the salvation of 
10 



146 Why the Baptist Name. 

responsible beings. Faith is intellectual, intelligent, to 
the extent of perceiving the truth believed and the Savior 
conceived; but "faith unto the saving of the soul" is also 
spiritual— the gift and operation of God in order to the 
saving and keeping of the soul, and capable of " increase " 
by the power of God. (Luke 17: 5; John 6: 65; Acts 15: 
8, 9; Rom. 12: 3.) Of course, faith conies instrumentally 
by hearing, as hearing comes by the word of God (Rom. 
10: 17); but one of the fruits of the Spirit is faith (Gal. 
5: 22), and in all faith "it is God which worketh in you 
both to will and to work, for his good pleasure " (Phil. 
2: 13). All saving and sanctifying faith is of God through 
the Spirit and the word; and the exercise of this faith be- 
longs to the penitent believer (1) in the saving of the 
soul and (2) in that obedience which proves, but never 
produces, the fact. (2 Thess. 2: 13, 14.) 

My opponent does not comprehend the " intelligent faith " 
of Baptists, who cooperate with other Christians in the 
realm of the moral and the spiritual, in which they may 
agree, and separate from them in the realm of the organic 
and ceremonial, in which they do not agree. Baptists, in 
this particular, are not Romanists, as are Campbellites, 
who hold that the organic and ceremonial institutions of 
Christ are mediums of salvation by grace and in the hands 
of a priest or a preacher. While, however, we do not so 
maintain church order, ordinance, and office, we do hold 
them essential to their purpose of preserving purely the 
moral and the spiritual; and hence our restricted church 
relations, baptism and communion, in which we part with 
others who do not thus maintain scriptural order. With 
these convictions Baptists not only show an " intelligent 
faith," but a Christian spirit in their moral and spiritual 
cooperation with those they deem unscriptural in the or- 
ganic and ceremonial of Christianity; and they are far 
more consistent than our Campbellite friends, who are the 
most sectarian of all sects, who are constantly denouncing 
the sectarianism of all other people, and who open the 
Lord's table, against the Lord's law, to heretics unbaptized 
and doomed to hell, with whom they knowingly commune 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 147 

and at the same time damn by all the teaching and infer- 
ence of their doctrine. Talk about an " intelligent faith " 
and call me a " sophist!" 

Contrary to my proposition that baptism is not essential 
to salvation, but that salvation is essential to baptism, 
my opponent cites me to 1 Pet. 3: 20, 21: "When the long- 
suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the 
ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were 
saved through water: which also after a true likeness [like 
figure] doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting 
away of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a 
good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of 
Jesus Christ." My opponent says, " Here it is distinctly 
said we are saved by baptism;" and he arrays Hovey, Will- 
marth, and Barnes to confirm his position; but if the facts 
are against him and his witnesses, all their scholarly dis- 
quisition in favor of literalizing symbolism must come to 
naught. It is true here that we are saved by baptism, but 
it is a figurative salvation — the " true likeness," or " like 
figure," by which baptism saves us. Those eight souls were 
in the ark — shut in of God himself — and that ark, with 
its one door in the side and its one light above, represent- 
ing the wounded side of the Spirit-illumed Redeemer, was 
a type of Christ crucified, through whose gaping side we 
enter by faith and are shut in of God and so saved by his 
grace. They were in the ark before they got into the 
water, already saved and perfectly safe in the ark; and so, 
in the ark, they were buried in the flood and borne through 
and out of it to the new world, representing their resur- 
rection and translation. This was a physical and typical 
transaction of which baptism is a " true likeness " or " like 
figure" of our salvation in Christ, the spiritual Ark. We 
get into Christ, first of all, by faith, shut in of God, and 
so in Christ we are baptized in water — figuratively buried 
and risen with him — but the salvation thus symbolized in 
water lies back in the Ark, and not in the water. We get 
into Christ before we get into the water, and are saved 
already and beforehand; and so we get into the water to 
signify or symbolize our salvation through the death, 



148 Why the Baptist Name. 

burial, and resurrection of Christ, typified by the ark and 
the flood. Hence our salvation by water is a figurative or 
symbolic salvation represented by Peter as consummated 
in the resurrection of Christ; and hence it is " the inter- 
rogation [or answer] of a good conscience toward God," 
who, when we believe, shuts us in the Ark, the conscious- 
ness of which bestows the joy of such a salvation, and 
which gladly obeys in baptism, which sets forth the fact 
in this sublime " figure " or symbolism. 

Of course, in Eph. 2 : 5, " death in trespasses and in 
sins " means " separation from God." This is the defini- 
tion of spiritual death, as separation of soul and body 
means physical death, with its resultant decay and cor- 
ruption; and this means the moral inability of the sinner 
to believe and obey God, without the direct power of the 
Holy Spirit to quicken or make alive in Christ by the grace 
of God. I grant that the gospel is the instrumental power 
of God unto salvation to those who believe; but as with 
the "dry bones" (Ezek. 37: 2-14), while prophecy had the 
power to rattle the dry bones, bring them in place, or- 
ganize them into bodies and put flesh upon them, it re- 
quired " Breath" the " Spirit of Jehovah," to breathe life 
into them. " So is every one that is born of the Spirit " — 
that is, every one upon whom " the wind bloweth " or the 
" Spirit breatheth," having heard the " voice thereof." So 
God opened the heart of Lydia (Acts 16: 14) " to give heed 
unto the things spoken by Paul;" and the exegesis of 
Lydia's case by my opponent, as follows, " ' The Lord 
opened the heart of Lydia' simply means that he did it 
through the preaching of Paul and not by any additional 
influence exerted by a ' direct impact ' of the Holy Spirit," 
simply means that the preaching of Paul opened the heart 
of Lydia to receive the preaching of Paul, which is ab- 
surd. The text shows that the Lord opened Lydia's heart 
to receive the preaching of Paul; and the Scriptures no- 
where show that the word of God is God's " agent " acting 
for him as "principal" in convicting and quickening the 
dead soul to life in Christ. The word of God is all-power- 
ful and a quickening instrument only as made effective 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 149 

by the Holy Spirit, whose office is to convict and quicken — 
make alive. Lydia and her house, like Cornelius and his 
house, were legalistic worshipers of God, but they were as 
dead in sin as the honest Pharisee. Both had to hear the 
gospel to believe in Christ and be saved, as any other sin- 
ners; and as God "cleansed the hearts" of Cornelius and 
his house " by faith," so the Lord opened the heart of 
Lydia to receive the gospel of salvation. According to the 
record, God did this work personally and directly, and not 
by proxy. 

My opponent suggests that if John was a Baptist preacher 
because he preached baptism, he was a repentance preacher 
because he preached repentance. Of course he was; but 
the Scriptures dignify him only with the title, " the Bap- 
tist," because his baptism involved repentance. He says 
again that I am not the same kind of preacher John was, 
because John required a " confession of sins," and that I 
do not; but while I do ask the convert to confess that 
" God for Christ's sake has forgiven his sins," this is a 
" confessing of sins," just as John required before his bap- 
tism — a confession of sins renounced and fruits worthy of 
repentance. He asks, since John had no church in which 
to receive members, and so did not receive them upon the 
vote of the church — and since after the church was estab- 
lished no apostle so received them — by what authority do 
I so receive them. Why, in the first church at Jerusalem 
we find the principle of election established in the choice 
of Matthias in place of Judas by vote (Acts 1: 23-26); so 
were the first deacons chosen by the church (Acts 6: 5, 6) ; 
and so the elders were appointed (cheirotonisantes) in the 
churches, the apostles, at first, evidently announcing their 
election by the churches through their show of the hand, 
just as we do to-day. The discipline of the incestuous 
man (1 Cor. 5: 4, 5, 13), his evident exclusion and resto- 
ration (1 Cor. 7: 11) by the church, must have been done 
by the vote of the church; and it is a perfectly reasonable 
inference that if the first churches by election chose and 
dismissed their officers, disciplined their members, they so 
received and dismissed their members. It is based upon 



150 Why the Baptist Name. 

the great democratic principle of church government in 
the New Testament, and whether formally observed by our 
Campbellite friends or not, doubtless the principle is con- 
served upon the ground of consent, by which members are 
received and retained in their churches. The Lord adding 
to the church those who " were saved " implies only the 
spiritual preparation essential to church membership; but 
they had to be baptized, received, and " enrolled," the en- 
rolling being a custom of the New Testament churches, as 
seen in the method of dealing with widows. If Brother 
Smith has an enrollment of church members upon consent, 
he has about all that implies a reception by vote. 

Yes, I admit that repentance is a fruit of conviction, re- 
sulting from a historical belief of the truth; but such a be- 
lief of the truth is not saving faith in Jesus Christ, which 
follows repentance toward God. "The devils believe and 
tremble;" but such a belief is far from being "faith unto 
the saving of the soul." Historical belief may grow 
through conviction and repentance into saving faith, as on 
the day of Pentecost; and the faith of the saved may grow 
and " increase " indefinitely. 

I have not only said that the sinner reaches the benefits 
of the blood by faith (Rom. 5: 1-11), and then symbolizes 
the fact by baptism, but I have shown that being symbol- 
ically baptized into Christ's death involves baptism into 
Christ himself. (Rom. 6: 3.) We are put into Christ by 
faith, and baptism signifies the fact. (Rom. 4: 2-12; 5: 
1-11 absolutely fix justification by faith alone, "without 
work," and excludes the possibility of baptism as a means 
of justification. Abraham's faith was " reckoned unto him 
for righteousness," which is justification by faith " without 
work;" and circumcision was given to him as a seal or 
token of the righteousness of his faith which he had in 
uncircumcision; and this is the basis of Paul's grand argu- 
ment for justification by faith in Christ unto life eternal 
that it might be by grace without work. The analogy be- 
tween circumcision and baptism is that as circumcision 
was given to Abraham as a seal of the righteousness of the 
faith which he had in uncircumcision, so baptism is a 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 151 

token of our justification by faith which we had in un- 
oaptism. Abraham was justified unto life through faith 
before circumcision; we are, like our father Abraham, justi- 
fied unto life through faith before baptism. The analogy 
and its argument are unanswerable. 

The citation of James 2: 26, as I have shown under an- 
other head, has nothing to do with salvation by grace 
through justification by faith unto life, except to show 
that justification by work is proof of justification by faith. 
Faith that will not work, obey, is dead, and is not justifying 
faith, or the "faith unto salvation;" and one of the evi- 
dences of a dead faith is refusal to be baptized; but there 
is no Scripture for a faith that justifies unto life on ac- 
count of obedience in baptism. The faith that justifies 
unto righteousness must be " without work," to begin with; 
but once had and tokened by baptism, it is "proved" by 
justification through work, through life, as Abraham was 
"proved," and so justified by his work (Gen. 22: 1-18), 
twenty years after he was saved by faith and circumcised. 

Rom. 6: 3-5 follows Rom. 4; 5: 1-11 to set forth the great 
argument for justification by faith alone — salvation by 
grace — in the splendid symbol of baptism, which repre- 
sents us as spiritually dead, buried and risen, through 
faith, in Christ; thus in Christ, and so united to him in 
the " likeness " of his death, burial, and resurrection, and 
so united with his universal spiritual body. Justification 
by faith secures all this, and baptism symbolizes and de- 
clares the fact, but cannot produce it. The very principle 
upon which salvation by grace, through justification by 
faith, is founded, excludes baptism, as any other external 
work, that no man may glory. "All of grace, or none of 
grace," is the maxim of God, who will have all the glory of 
salvation through his Son. " Faith alone," my opponent 
repeats, does not reach the blood, but by faith we are 
baptized into the death of Christ. I " separate Christ, the 
Head, from the body, the church," he says, because I have 
sinners " saved before they reach the church." We both 
agree that one cannot be saved without being in Christ; 
but he says again: "He cannot be in Christ without being 



152 Why the Baptist Name. 

in his body, which is the church." (Col. 1: 18-24; Eph. 
5: 23.) If he means the individual or local church, this 
is bald Romanism; if he means the universal spiritual 
body of Christ, which embraces the whole company of the 
regenerate in all times and ages, in heaven and on earth, 
redeemed by the blood of Christ, he is right. This church, 
which is the body of Christ, is "the fullness of him that 
filleth all in all" (Eph. 1: 22, 23), and cannot be pred- 
icated of a local or individual body, which is only the con- 
crete type of the whole. The eunuch, when he believed 
and was baptized, belonged to the universal church, or 
body of Christ; but he was not separated from Christ, the 
Head, because he had not believed and been baptized into 
a local body; and he never was a member of a visible or 
individual church until he voluntarily associated himself 
with such a body upon terms of fellowship and unity and 
by the authority of his previous confession and baptism. 

With reference to the "natural man" (1 Cor. 2: 14), 
my position is that whether in the light of revelation or 
sinful state, he is morally incapable, in himself, of receiv- 
ing or discerning spiritual things; but through the Holy 
Spirit by the word he can know and realize the things of 
the Spirit, but not otherwise. By the " natural man " is 
meant the sinner " dead in trespasses and in sins " — by 
nature the child of wrath — who alone can be illuminated 
by the power of God and made alive, through the word, at 
the hands of the convicting and quickening Spirit. 

I still maintain that baptism alone does not make a 
Baptist, and that he only becomes nominally and formally 
a Baptist by baptism. It takes everything else to make a 
Baptist, with baptism as the crowning declaration of the 
fact. As I said before, with a Baptist, baptism is nothing 
without everything else; with a Campbellite, everything 
else is nothing without baptism; and this is the reason 
my opponent has but little or no idea of what it takes to 
make a Baptist. One can have the name and not be a 
Baptist, except in name; and one can be a Baptist in prin- 
ciple or persuasion without the name. The name, how- 
ever, is a symbolic designation of our denomination, and, 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 153 

in that sense, sets forth what we are or believe, and is 
essential to the identity of our people without being in 
any sense sectarian. 

My opponent rejoices again that he can believe, repent, 
be baptized, keep every command of God, die and get to 
heaven without being a Baptist or any one else bearing a 
sectarian name. Although he has his repentance where 
his faith ought to be, and although both his repentance 
and faith are claimed without the direct agency of the 
Holy Spirit, and although his baptism is without scrip- 
tural design, I trust my brother has risen above his theory 
and his creed and will get to heaven. Unfortunately, his 
theory makes the blood of Christ " of none effect " by mak- 
ing water share with faith in the justification of the be- 
liever — just as the Judaizers did with circumcision — con- 
trary to the fundamental principle of salvation by grace 
" without work," to begin with, but which always works 
when consummated by saving faith, to end with. His ob- 
jection to union with Baptist or other churches is his aver- 
sion to religious institutions with sectarian names that 
serve to divide and perpetuate sinful divisions among the 
"professed" children of God! This is marvelous boasting 
for a sect not a hundred years old and never heard of 
until the days of Alexander Campbell; but this is just like 
all young and fresh denominations who claim to be the 
only people of God. I do not know of a sect worse divided 
against itself, or more narrowly sectarian against all oth- 
ers, than our Campbellite or Christian brethren. To say 
the best of it, it is the pot calling the kettle " black." In 
the light of the Bible and the enlightened creeds and the- 
ologies of Protestant Christendom — in the light of all my 
opponent has written in this discussion — Campbellism is a 
new and modified adaptation of Pelagianism and Roman- 
ism to Christianity; and it ill becomes that new-made sect 
to be charging other people with heresy and sectarianism, 
since it stands for some of the worst forms of heresy and 
sectarianism itself. I say this in all honesty of conviction 
and sense of duty, and without the slightest animosity or 



154 Why the Baptist Name. 

resentment toward my Brother Smith for his animadver- 
sions along this line; for I am certain that he is sincere 
and seems to have the Spirit of Christ in spite of his theory 
of salvation. 






Lofton-Smith Discussion. 155 



V. 

"JOHN THE PROTOTYPE OF ALL 
BAPTISTS." 

Mr. Smith's First Review. 

"We come now to deal more fully with the name " Bap- 
tist," which the author introduces as follows: 

The name "Baptist" would never have heen known if 
baptism had not been immersion. It had been "John the 
Rhantist," if sprinkling had been the performance. Bapt 
means dipt; the very sound corresponds to the sense. 
" Baptist " means dipper. 

The author says: " The name ' Baptist' would never have 
been known if baptism had not been immersion." He is 
very much in error at this point; for, to have stated the 
case correctly, he should have said : " The name ' Baptist ' 
would never have been known if the translators had trans- 
lated the word ' Baptistees.' " Hence in this statement he 
does not deal fairly with the word of God. I do not charge 
that he does so intentionally, but the fact that he does not 
" handle aright the word of truth " can be clearly shown. 
Dr. Lofton is a scholar, familiar with the Greek language, 
in consequence of which fact he will not — yea, he dare not 
— deny the following: (1) The word "Baptist" is not a 
translated word, but simply the English spelling, or the 
anglicized form of the Greek word Baptistees, just as " bap- 
tize" is of oaptizo — the latter with the verbal ending 
changed from o to e, and the former with the noun ending 
omitted. (2) Hence the translation of the Greek word 
Baptistees into English would be " immerser," making the 
phrase read "John the immerser" instead of "John the 
Baptist." Brother Lofton insists with the greatest em- 
phasis that baptizo should have been translated, making 
every English version of the Scriptures contain the word 



156 Why the Baptist Name. 

" immerse " instead of " baptize." Can he assign one valid 
reason for not insisting upon having Baptistees translated? 
Ah, "here is the rub! " This would deprive him of his 
denominational name " Baptist; " and yet truth demands 
this of him. 

Well, this is exactly what the Baptist Church did at one 
time, as I shall now show. I have before me two copies 
of the New Testament, entitled " The Common English 
Version, Corrected by the Final Committee of the American 
Bible Union." This revision (edition of 1866) was made 
by the Baptist Church itself, fully indorsed and sent broad- 
cast to the world, and — would you believe it? — the word 
"Baptist" does not appear anywhere in it! This is the 
way it reads: " In those days comes John the Immerser 
preaching in the wilderness of Judea, saying, Repent ye, 
for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." (Matt. 3: 1, 2.) 
Now, according to this translation, which is undoubtedly 
correct in thus translating Baptistees, Dr. Lofton is con 
tending for a "name" which is not in the Bible at all, 
Baptists themselves being witness. I ask, then, if the 
name " Baptist " is not in the Bible, how did it come to 
be a name sanctioned by the Lord, as the Doctor affirms? 
Has he received a revelation from God since the inspired 
canon closed? If so, what token will he give us of that 
revelation? Realizing the incongruity of having a de- 
nomination called the " Immerser " Church, and being un- 
willing to appropriate a common scriptural name, the Bap- 
tist Church at their Bible Convention, Saratoga, N. Y., May 
22, 23, 1883, appointed a committee to prepare an im- 
proved edition of the " Bible Union Translation," in which 
they put back the word "Baptist!" Hence it now has: 
" In those days comes John the Baptist preaching in the 
wilderness of Judea, saying, Repent ye, for the kingdom of 
heaven is at hand." (Matt. 3: 1, 2.) But in verses 5, 6 
of the same chapter they make it read : " Then went out to 
him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round 
about Jordan; and they were immersed [mark you, not 
"baptized"] by him in the river Jordan, confessing their 
sing." It has been said that " consistency is a jewel," and 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 157 

in no place does this noble virtue lie prostrate, wounded 
and bleeding, more than in this translation of the Baptist 
Church. This might be properly termed " the tragedy of 
translations." 

In view of the foregoing incontrovertible facts, the public 
will be led to wonder how Dr. Lofton could make the fol- 
lowing assertion: "John the Baptist was the prototype of 
all Baptists, in name, character, martyr spirit, in doctrine 
and practice." " Prototype " means " an example, model, 
pattern, or copy;" and it is generally believed that 
those who claim to follow Christ regard him as their Ex- 
emplar, model, pattern, or copy. At least this is the way 
the apostle Peter puts it: "For hereunto were ye called: 
because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an ex- 
ample, that ye should follow in his steps," (1 Pet. 2: 21.) 
Brother Lofton passes by the Master and looks to John, 
the servant, as his prototype. 

In the face of his clear and distinct statement that John 
" was called the ' Baptist ' because he baptized," he now 
comes forward with the assertion that Christ was " the 
Baptist Savior! " When did Christ ever baptize any one? 
Do not the Scriptures state most plainly that Christ bap- 
tized no one? (John 4: 1, 2.) If John became the Baptist 
because he baptized, how did Christ become " the Baptist 
Savior," when he never baptized a single person? 

Now comes an assertion that is simply astonishing: 
" The first churches were baptized or Baptist churches, con- 
stituted with Christ as Head and Lawgiver, but practicing 
John's baptism and holding to the fundamental principles 
upon which that baptism was administered: repentance to- 
ward God and faith in Christ." Long after John the 
Baptist was dead Christ said: "Upon this rock I will build 
my church." (Matt. 16: 18.) The very first organic mani- 
festation of this church is found on the day of Pentecost 
(Acts 2: 41), when the charter members, or those baptized 
by John, assembled in Jerusalem for the organization of 
the church. Those added to these charter members were 
baptized, not with the baptism that John taught, but with 
the baptism that Christ commanded and placed in the great 



158 Why the Baptist Name. 

commission. (Matt. 28: 19, 20.) The apostle Paul went 
to Ephesus and found some who had been baptized into 
John's baptism after it had gone out of force, and they were, 
after being instructed, " baptized into the name of the 
Lord Jesus." (Acts 19: 1-5.) One of the fundamental 
principles upon which John's baptism rested was faith in 
Him who was to come, but the baptism of the first converts 
to Christianity was based upon faith in Him who had al- 
ready come, been crucified, buried, and raised from the dead. 
But the Doctor says that the first churches were con- 
stituted with " Christ as Head and Lawgiver." In this he 
is absolutely correct, and because of this fact I will ask 
him, since a head implies a body, whose body is it over 
which Christ is Head? This is a vital point, for the simple 
reason that it will settle once for all the "name" ques- 
tion. " Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and 
fill up on my part that which is lacking of the afflictions of 
Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church." 
(Col. 1: 24.) Now, since the church is Christ's body and 
he is the Head of his body, or church, is it not reasonable 
to conclude that the body should partake of the Head? 
Is there any reason why a body should not derive its name 
from its head? Will Dr. Lofton persist in calling the body 
of Christ after the official name of one who was not even 
a member of that body, but who died before the body was 
organized? Where did the author get the name " Lofton? " 
Did he not get it from the head of the Lofton family? 
If the Head of the spiritual family, the church, is named 
" Christ," by what course of reasoning can the Doctor apply 
to his family the name " Baptist? " Did any inspired man 
ever do such a thing? God organized the " commonwealth " 
of Israel and bestowed upon it his own high and holy 
name." O Israel: fear not, for I have redeemed thee; I 
have called thee by thy name, thou art mine." (Isa. 43: 
1.) Again: "If my people, who are called by my name, 
shall humble themselves," etc. (2 Chron. 7: 13, 14.) Now, 
what was the name which the Lord here calls his name 
and by which his people were called? "Unto this day 
they do after the former manner: they fear not Jehovah, 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 159 

neither do they after their statutes, or after their ordi- 
nances, or after the law or after the commandment which 
Jehovah commanded the children of Jacob, whom he named 
Israel:' (2 Kings 17: 34.) El was the name of God in 
the Hebrew language; hence the last syllable in the word 
" Israel " is God's name which he gave to his people under 
the old dispensation. Now, one of the prophets of God in 
telling of things that should come to pass, said: "For 
Zion's sake will I not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem's 
sake I will not rest, until the righteousness thereof go 
forth as brightness, and the salvation thereof as a lamp 
that burneth. And the Gentiles shall see thy righteous- 
ness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by 
a new name, which the mouth of the Lord shall name" 
(Isa. 62: 1, 2.) When God organized the new institution, 
the church of Jesus Christ, he was in Christ reconciling 
the world unto himself (2 Cor. 5: 19) ; and so soon as the 
time came when the Gentiles saw the righteousness of 
God or were admitted to the kingdom, the prophecy of 
Isaiah was fulfilled and the " new name " was bestowed. 
This was done after the conversion of Cornelius, as re- 
corded in Acts 11: 26, where it is said: " The disciples were 
called Christians first in Antioch." Thus God honored his 
Son in bestowing his name (Christ-ian) upon his people, 
which name is derived from Christ, the Head of the 
church. The children of God are married to his Son (see 
Rom. 7: 1-4), and he bestows his name upon his bride, the 
church (2 Cor. 11: 1-2). Hence the congregations of dis- 
ciples were called " the churches of Christ," and not Bap- 
tist Churches. "All the churches of Christ salute you." 
(Rom. 16: 16.) 

The Doctor says: " The New Testament writers never ap- 
plied the name ' Christian ' to disciples or church:' Is it 
possible that our brother overlooked this passage: "But if 
a man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but 
let him glorify God in this name? " (1 Pet. 4: 16.) Christ 
said: "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's 
sake: but he that endureth to the end, the same shall be 
saved." (Matt. 10: 22.) If, as many claim, the name 



160 Why the Baptist Name. 

" Christian " was given in derision, how does it happen 
that Christ calls it his name? And how could it have been 
possible for those to whom Peter wrote to glorify God in 
a name bestowed upon the disciples by the enemies of 
Christ? How could James call the name " Christian " a 
worthy name, if it was not of divine origin? " Do not they 
blaspheme the honorable name by which ye are called? " 
(James 2:7.) The Lord said to the church at Pergamum: 
"Thou holdest fast my name." (Rev. 2: 13.) Again, in 
speaking of a missionary journey, it is said: " Because that 
for the sake of the Name they went forth, taking nothing 
of the Gentiles." (3 John 7.) Here we have mentioned 
a specific name; and will the Doctor tell us what that name 
was? Christ praised the church in Philadelphia for not 
denying his name. (Rev. 3: 8.) Will Dr. Lofton tell us 
what that name was? 

Now I propose to show that an inspired man did apply 
the name Christian to the disciples, and I defy Dr. Lofton 
to gainsay it. "And when he had found him, he brought 
him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that even for a 
whole year they were gathered together with the church, 
and taught much people; and that the disciples were called 
Christians first in Antioch." (Acts 11: 25, 26.) We have 
two facts stated in this passage that are very significant — 
(1) Paul, an inspired man, is present, and (2) the disciples 
" were called Christians." It is not stated that this name 
was bestowed through Paul, but we have strong presump- 
tive evidence that it was. The controversy here turns 
upon the meaning of " were called." Now, the usual Greek 
word translated " call " is kaleo, in some of its different 
forms; but in the passage before us we have an entirely 
different word — viz., chrematizo. Young, in his "Analyt- 
ical Concordance," defines this word: "To declare by an 
oracle." In the Greek-English lexicon published with Bag- 
ster's Greek Testament it is defined: " To impart a divine 
warning or admonition, give instructions or directions un- 
der the guidance of inspiration; and passive, to receive a 
divine admonition, be warned of God, be divinely in- 
structed; intransitive, to be called, named, be known by 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 161 

a particular appellation; imposed on one from his business 
or office." He defines the word as a noun, " a response 
from God, a divine answer, communication, or oracle." 
The learned Adam Clarke says: " The word which we trans- 
late were called signifies, in the New Testament, to ap- 
point, warn, or nominate by divine direction." He claims 
that the name " Christian " in Acts 11 : 26 was divinely 
given. (See Clarke's "Commentary.") J. H. Thayer, in 
his Greek-English lexicon, says: " To give a divine command 
or admonition, to teach from heaven." This word chre- 
matizo, translated were called, occurs in all its different 
forms only ten times in the New Testament, and the fol- 
lowing passages are those in which it is found: "And being 
warned of God in a dream that they should not return 
to Herod." (Matt. 2: 12.) "And being warned of God 
in a dream, he withdrew into the parts of Galilee." (Matt. 
2: 22.) "And it had been revealed unto him by the Holy 
Spirit, that he should not see death, before he had seen the 
Lord's Christ." (Luke 2: 26.) "Cornelius . . . was 
warned of God by a holy angel to send for thee into his 
house, and to hear words from thee." (Acts 10: 22.) 
" The disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." 
(Acts 11: 26.) " So then if, while the husband liveth, she 
be joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress." 
(Rom 7: 3.) "But what saith the answer of God unto 
him?" (Rom. 11: 4.) "As Moses is warned of God, when 
he is about to make the tabernacle." (Heb. 8: 5.) " Noah, 
being warned of God concerning things not seen as yet." 
(Heb. 11: 7.) " For if they escaped not when they refused 
him that warned them on earth." (Heb. 12: 25.) The 
casual reader can see that in every instance where this 
word is used it relates to something God did. It is true 
that often God did the thing through man, but the man 
was inspired. 

11 



162 Why the Baptist Name. 

Dr. Lofton's First Reply. 

My statement, " The name ' Baptist ' would never have 
been known if baptism had not been immersion," my op- 
ponent meets by saying that the word " Baptist " had never 
been known if the Greek " Baptistees " had been translated. 
It had been "John the Immerser " instead, and we had been 
called " immersionists," as often the case; but, in the provi- 
dence of God, the words baptizo and Baptistees, which are 
more comprehensive and characteristic than any transla- 
tion, have retained their anglicized form. Not only the 
scholarship of the world, but the weight of Baptist schol- 
arship, has steadily adhered to the words " baptism " and 
"John the Baptist," in spite of controversy. Even, how- 
ever, if baptizo had been rendered " immerse " and Bap- 
tistees " immerser," and our people and churches called 
" immersionist," as many times true, it would not have 
altered the name or changed the character and history of 
the Baptist denomination; but, according to providence and 
persistence of scholarship, the " if " has not intervened. 

I grant that some Baptist scholars have moved the trans- 
lation of the New Testament and rendered baptizo " im- 
merse" and Ionanees ho Baptistees "John the Immerser;" 
but while the translation was useful, by way of comment 
and interpretation, Baptist scholarship never accepted their 
effort as an authorized version; and the few Baptist schol- 
ars who vary from their denomination, on this and other 
points, is no settled testimony against Baptist position. 
Some Baptists, so called, might be quoted for several here- 
sies afloat; and what is true of Baptist scholars is true of 
the scholars of every denomination — even that of my 
Brother Smith. My opponent says: " Brother Lofton insists 
with the greatest emphasis that baptizo should have been 
translated, making every English version of the Scriptures 
contain the word ' immerse ' instead of ' baptize.' " If 1 
ever held the position, I have long since abandoned it, see- 
ing the incongruities, if not absurdities, of Conant and oth- 
ers; and I have long since concluded that baptizo, like 
some other words in the Greek Testament, is stronger and 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 163 

more susceptible of uniform and constant meaning by being 
left anglicized. That grand old death, burial, and resur- 
rection word, baptism, however perverted, will outlive its 
conflict with rhantism and ritualism; and, while " im- 
merse," " dip," " whelm," " overwhelm," and the like are 
true renderings, baptizo has been crystallized in the thought 
of the ages, and is, in its present form, the most permanent 
and effective symbolization of saving truth in the language 
of the religious world. 

Brother Smith takes up my assertion: "John the Bap- 
tist was the prototype of all Baptists, in name, character, 
martyr spirit, in doctrine and practice." He says that I 
excluded the Master as "an example, model, pattern, or 
copy" (the definition of prototype), and follow John the 
Baptist, as such, contrary to Peter (1 Pet. 2: 21); but 1 
mean to say that Baptists follow John the Baptist as a 
denominational archetype, or original, in certain funda- 
mental doctrines and practices demanded by his baptism 
and characterized by his name, and not as the Head and 
Lawgiver over the churches. We go with our Master, who 
submitted to John's baptism, adopted it as his own, and 
established his kingdom on the foundation of principles 
and practices as set up by "the Baptist;" and in the ex- 
tension of his kingdom the Master with his disciples con- 
tinued to preach as John did — " Repent, for the kingdom of 
heaven is at hand; " "Repent ye, and believe the gospel " 
— making converts and baptizing them, just as the Baptist 
did, and with the same baptism. John was next to Jesus, 
as the friend of the Bridegroom; and Jesus exalted John, 
than whom " none " was " greater born " among men, and 
he honored his preaching with his own under the figures of 
mourning and piping, alike, to the same unwilling people. 
In emphasizing John's preaching and baptism, we take his 
name as our Baptist archetype, or denominational patro- 
nym, holding Christ only as Head of the church. We are 
simply Christians of John the Baptist stripe; and the stripe 
is articulated and differentiated by the divisions and dis- 
tinctions of the religious world. These divisions we hold 
to be erroneous; and, with love for all, we wave the banner 



164 Why the Baptist Name. 

of Christ from the flagpole of John the Baptist, whose very 
name is the synonym of Christian orthodoxy, purity, and 
power. 

My opponent is astounded at my proposition that, 
after saying that John was called " the Baptist " because he 
baptized, I should have called Christ " the Baptist Savior." 
" When," says he, " did Christ ever baptize any one? " and 
he goes on to quote John 4: 1-2 to show that Christ "bap- 
tized not, but his disciples." True, but he had it done; 
and, more than this, he submitted to John's baptism, adopt- 
ed it as his own, and followed the principles and practices 
involved by the Baptist's administration. Surely all this 
made Jesus a Baptist, both ceremonially and doctrinally, 
as he thus symbolized his death, burial, and resurrection, 
and " thus " fulfilled " all righteousness." 

My opponent is astounded again at my position: "The 
first churches were baptized or Baptist churches, consti- 
tuted with Christ as Head and Lawgiver, but practicing 
John's baptism, and holding to the fundamental principles 
upon which that baptism was administered: repentance 
toward God and faith in Christ." My opponent makes the 
following reply: 

Long after John the Baptist was dead, Christ said: " Upon 
this rock I will build my church." (Matt. 16: 18.) The 
very first organic manifestation of this church is found on 
the day of Pentecost (Acts 2: 41), when the charter mem- 
bers, or those baptized by John, assembled in Jerusalem for 
the organization of the church. Those added to these char- 
ter members were baptized, not with the baptism that John 
taught, but with the baptism that Christ commanded and 
placed in the great commission. (Matt. 28: 19, 20.) The 
apostle Paul went to Ephesus and found some who had 
been baptized unto John's baptism after it had gone out of 
force, and they were, after being instructed, " baptized into 
the name of the Lord Jesus." (Acts 19: 1-5.) One of the 
fundamental principles upon which John's baptism rested 
was faith in him who was to come, but the baptism of the 
first converts to Christianity was based upon faith in him 
who had already come, been crucified, buried, and raised 
from the dead. 

Upon the rock of Peter's faith and confession, and so 
upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets — Christ 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 165 

himself being the chief corner stone — the Master would 
build his universal church; but the "first organic mani- 
festation of this church " is found before the day of Pente- 
cost. John the Baptist furnished the first baptized — and, 
therefore, Baptist — material for its first visible constituen- 
cy; and it had its organic genesis "that day," in the place 
where two of John's disciples " abode " with the Lord, and 
where two constituted the first Baptist Church with Jesus 
Christ as Head of the little body. By personal work (John 
1: 41) three others were added; subsequently the "twelve" 
composed this apostolic body, or church, which ultimately 
constituted the nucleus of the one hundred and twenty 
disciples at Jerusalem, to which were " added,'" on the day 
of Pentecost, the three thousand converted and baptized. 
The instruction of Christ to Peter, regarding the settle- 
ment of personal differences, " Tell it unto the church " 
(Matt. 18: 17), indicates the recognition of that apostolic 
body as a " church," under the personal tutelage of its 
great Head; and when Peter stood in the midst of the 
brethren (Acts 1: 15-26), and, upon his own motion, an- 
other apostle was chosen in the place of Judas, by the 
sovereign lot of the " one hundred and twenty," it was, in 
the absence of Christ, an instance of church function and 
authority, involving church organization and action; as 
much so, and of the same kind, as the authority and action 
of the Jerusalem council (Acts 15), in which the "whole 
church," with the apostles and elders, decided upon the 
Antioch questions. Jesus, like Moses, left his " house " 
(the church) organized and at work (Heb. 3: 1-3), and so 
baptized it with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. This church 
thus baptized was in prayer and waiting ten days before 
that great event. 

My opponent says of this body that they were " baptized 
by John," and he calls them " charter members " assem- 
bling at Pentecost to organize the church. The church was 
already organized and at work; and the three thousand 
converted and baptized at Pentecost were simply " added " 
to this church. My brother says of these " added " that 
they were "not baptized with the baptism John taught," 



166 Why the Baptist Name. 

but with the baptism "Christ commanded" (Matt. 28: 19- 
20); but if the "charter members" were entitled, on the 
day of Pentecost, as he says, to organize a church upon 
John's baptism, what was the difference between John's 
and Christ's baptism? According to my opponent, none; 
and hence John's baptism, as administered by him, had not 
" gone out of force," but was of the same nature and au- 
thority as Christ's baptism. The baptism " unto John's 
baptism" (Acts 19: 1-5) was invalid because it was at 
best an anachronism — a baptism upon faith in Christ to 
come, who had already come; and this was the only differ- 
ence between John's and Christ's baptism. The mode, 
meaning, and object were the same; and the only thing 
out of " force " was the time of John's baptism which had 
been appropriated by Christ. It had now been applied to 
faith in Christ already come instead of Christ who was to 
come, and, as administered by John, was just as valid at 
Pentecost as was the Pentecostal baptism — my opponent be- 
ing witness. He says, however, that " the baptism of the 
first converts to Christianity was based upon faith in Him 
who had already come, been crucified, buried, and raised 
from the dead;" but surely those "charter members bap- 
tized by John," the " hundred and twenty," and those " for- 
given," " saved," " made whole," and baptized during the 
Master's ministry, were among the " first converts to Chris- 
tianity." 

For anything to the contrary, my proposition stands true: 
" The first churches were baptized or Baptist churches, con- 
stituted with Christ as Head and Lawgiver, but practicing 
John's baptism and holding the fundamental principles 
upon which that baptism was administered: repentance 
toward God and faith in Christ." The church at Jerusalem, 
both before and after Pentecost, was in every respect a 
Baptist Church, as an organized body of baptized believers, 
exercising democratic authority in church action and con- 
stituted through its "charter members," so called, upon 
John's baptism — my opponent being witness as to the bap- 
tism. What was true of the church at Jerusalem, as a 
Baptist Church was true of all the " first churches." 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 167 

Accepting that part of my statement — namely, " Christ 
is Head and Lawgiver over the church " — my oppo- 
nent vigorously argues that the body should derive its 
name from the Head and not from one who was not even 
a member of that body, and who died before it was or- 
ganized; and he asks significantly, if the Head of my spir- 
itual family, the church, is named " Christ," how can I 
apply to that spiritual family the name " Baptist," the 
official name of John? He says that God gave Jacob a new 
name — his own name — and called the commonwealth of the 
old dispensation " Israel;" and according to prophecy (Isa. 
62: 1-2), God promised a "new name" to the church when 
the Gentiles should be enlightened and brought in, as at 
the conversion of Cornelius (Acts 10: 43), and when, as at 
Antioch (Acts 11: 26), the disciples were "first called 
Christians." 

Well, " Israel " was the permanent name of the old com- 
monwealth, but it was just as often called "Jacob," after 
the "new name" was bestowed; and after the division 
arose, "Judah " and " Ephraim " were the common designa- 
tion of both houses of Israel. Like "Jacob " before " Israel," 
the name " Baptist " was before " Christ," and was the des- 
ignation of the precurser and his principles and practices 
in order to Christ's appearing; and although " Christ," like 
" Israel," is the name which distinguishes the common- 
wealth, yet " Baptist," like "Jacob," is still used to desig- 
nate the origin and foundation of the commonwealth. The 
word " Baptist " is no more in conflict with " Christ " than 
the word "Jacob" was in conflict with " Israel;" and while 
"John " and "Jesus " were not interchangeable names, as 
were "Jacob " and " Israel," yet their doctrine and practice 
were the same. The word " Baptist," having originated in 
the Scriptures as the designation of this doctrine and prac- 
tice, before Christ and the development of his common- 
wealth, it adheres denominationally to the commonwealth 
of Christ, just as the name "Jacob " adhered to the com- 
monwealth of Israel. 

The sixty-second chapter of Isaiah, with its context, is a 
luminous prophecy of the restoration of Israel and the 



168 Why the Baptist Name. 

glory of Zion, with the conversion of the Gentiles, under 
the Christian dispensation; but the " new name," or names, 
to be given Zion and Jerusalem (verse 4) are " Hephzibah " 
and " Beulah" meaning delight and married. Doubtless 
these names have a prophetic application to Christianity; 
and Eimchi, the great Hebrew scholar, specially so applies 
" Hephzibah " as the " new name " to be given the church, 
the "delight" of Christ and to which he is "married;" 
but these names have not the slightest resemblance to the 
calling of " the disciples Christians at Antioch." In verse 
12 it is written: "And they shall call them The holy peo- 
ple, The redeemed of Jehovah: and thou shalt be called 
Sought out, A city not forsaken." There are several new 
names here prophetically applied. 

Baptists, as already said, do not follow John as a divine 
model, nor as the head of the church, but as the great 
baptismal and doctrinal precurser of Christ. Things were 
Baptist upon the coming, and in view of the coming, of 
Christ. Christ had a Baptist introduction to his ministry; 
and those like John in doctrine, practice, spirit, and char- 
acter hold the name "Baptist" to the glory of Christ as 
John proclaimed him, baptized him, and furnished the orig- 
inal material out of which his kingdom was organized. We 
honor John only as our denominational prototype, and as 
he glorified Christ as Head of the church; and, like John, 
to this day we cry: " Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh 
away the sin of the world." Christ was a baptized Re- 
deemer — the Baptist Savior — symbolizing salvation by 
grace, in fulfillment of " all righteousness," as set forth in 
his baptism; and to this day baptism, in its true signifi- 
cance, has been the test of orthodoxy against a false mode, 
a false subject, and a false design. These people called 
Baptists — and long stigmatized Anabaptists — have, after 
the manner of John the Baptist, stood in the breach against 
ritualism and rationalism — Phariseeism and Sadduceeism 
— for salvation by grace, through faith, alone, as symbol- 
ized, but not secured, by baptism. We are the churches 
of Christ, called " Baptists;" and we could not now help be- 
ing Baptists, nor help being called " Baptists," and be what 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 169 

we are, in the face of division among Christians, existent 
since the days of the apostolic churches. This is not sim- 
ply because we baptize, but because of the doctrinal and 
spiritual significance growing out of baptism as first de- 
veloped by John the Baptist, our personal, denominational, 
and characteristic archetype. 

My statement, " The New Testament writers never 
applied the name * Christian ' to disciples or church," is 
controverted by my opponent in most energetic terms. He 
cites me to 1 Pet. 4: 16: " But if a man suffer as a Chris- 
tian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God in 
this name." While Peter admonishes his people not to be 
" ashamed " of the name, and urges them to " glorify God " 
in its reproach, he does not address them as Christians. 
He calls them "elect," "beloved," and the like; and it is 
singular, if " Christian " was the common name of God's 
people and so given by divine authority, that Peter, at that 
time, did not repeatedly address them directly as such. 
The expressions, "for my name's sake" (Matt. 10: 22), 
" the honorable name by which they are called " (James 
2: 7), "thou holdest fast my name" (Rev. 2: 13), "for 
the sake of the name" (3 John 7), evidently referred to 
"Christ" or "Jesus" (Acts 4: 18); and there is no rea- 
sonable inference that it referred to " Christian," since 
not one of these writers referred to mentions that name. 

But my opponent insists that, at least, an inspired man 
did apply the name " Christian " to the disciples at Antioch 
— defying me to gainsay it! He cites Acts 11: 25, 26: 
"And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. 
And it came to pass, that even for a whole year they were 
gathered together with the church, and taught much peo- 
ple; and that the disciples were called Christians first in 
Antioch." My opponent, in seeking for the divinity of this 
calling — apart from any natural origin of the name — says 
that the word kaleo, the very word by which the Savior 
was " called Jesus " and by which Jesus called his apos- 
tles, is not used; and he seeks to make his point in the use 
of chrematizo, a word of great variation. The primary 
meaning of the word is to have dealings, transact busi- 



170 Why the Baptist Name. 

ness, negotiate, to give answer on deliberation. In the 
New Testament, passive, to be divinely instructed, receive 
a revelation from God or warning from God. (Matt. 2: 12- 
22; Luke 2: 26; Acts 10: 22; Rom. 11: 4; Heb. 8: 5; 
11: 7; 12: 25.) In New Testament, intransitive, to re- 
ceive an appellation, be styled, called. (Acts 11: 26; Rom. 
7: 3.) (Green's New Testament Lexicon.) According to 
Robinson's New Testament Lexicon, in the later Greek 
usage, chrematizo means to do business as any one under 
any name, hence, to take or bear a name, to be named, 
called (Acts 11: 26; Rom. 7: 3); and the translators of 
the New Testament followed this latter rendering of chre- 
matizo, in those two passages, in the natural but not oracu- 
lar meaning of the word. The disciples were called Chris- 
tians, but not oracularly so, else the divine record would 
have expressed the fact. Eight out of ten uses of chre- 
matizo, in the New Testament, clearly show the oracular 
employment of the word; but in Acts 11: 26 and Rom. 7: 3 
the word is translated " called " as a divinely recorded fact 
without implication of divine authority for the fact. It is 
a fact that such a woman (Rom. 7: 3) is an "adulteress, 1 ' 
as " called," that " the disciples were called Christians at 
Antioch" (Acts 11: 26); but while chrematizo, in both in- 
stances, implies that God is the author of the record, it does 
not imply that he is the author of the fact. Who first called 
the disciples " Christians " is not revealed; and if Paul had 
been the author of the name, it is certain that the fact 
would have been stated. The author of the name cannot 
be inferred from the connection — except by a strain of in- 
terpretation to fit a theory; for the passage seems only in- 
cidental to the general record. 

The staggering argument against my opponent is that if 
the word " Christian " was of divine origin, the name was 
only used twice afterwards in the New Testament, and both 
times, apparently, as a term of reproach. Even in Acts 26 : 
28 Agrippa said to Paul, "With but little persuasion thou 
wouldest fain make me a Christian;" and many of the best 
scholars think Agrippa spoke in derision of what he deemed 
Paul's attempt, lightly, to make him a Christian. Whether 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 171 

he spoke in derision of the name or not, this is the second 
of the only three mentions of the name in all the record 
and writings of the New Testament, although the name 
seems generally to have been known at the time Agrippa 
spoke and Peter wrote. Paul never, in thirteen Epistles, 
uses the name; so of Hebrews, James, John, and Jude in 
these six Epistles; and, what is more, John in his final 
Revelation of the " seven churches " of Asia, never calls 
them " Christian." Granting the name was oracularly 
given at Antioch, the Scriptures seem to ascribe but little 
importance to the fact. "The church of God;" "the 
churches of Christ;" "the church;" "the churches;" "the 
church of the Thessalonians ; " "the churches of Galatia;" 
"the churches of Macedonia;" "the saints that are at 
Ephesus;" "the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Phi- 
lippi, with the bishops and the deacons;" "disciples;" 
"brethren;" "the elect" — all these, but never an address 
to saint or church as " Christian " — and all this after the 
disciples had been "called Christians at Antioch!" Espe- 
cially is it true that the designation, " Christian Church," 
is nowhere used in the Word of God. 

I heartily accept the name " Christian," as Peter did, no 
matter who gave it, or why it was bestowed. It is the nat- 
ural and certain appellation of Christ's followers, appar- 
ently divinely accepted without scriptural use or appropria- 
tion. In the providence of God, we have the name; but, 
so far as God's Word reveals, it is only a distinction be- 
tween those who follow Christ and those who do not. The 
name was never scripturally employed to distinguish be- 
tween the followers of Christ; and Alexander Campbell 
(Vol. IV., "Millennial Harbinger"), with reference to the 
name " Christian," spoke truly when he said: " I concluded 
that our brethren would come to reflect that for at least 
two reasons they could not obtain what they sought, be- 
cause no party in Christendom will ever call them ' Chris- 
tians ' to the disparagement of themselves. When a Pres- 
byterian, an Episcopalian, a Baptist, or a Methodist calls 
a denomination ' The Christians,' they must do it in the 
spirit of satire, irony, or insincerity. For these two rea- 



172 Why the Baptist Name. 

sons I hold it impossible to gain the name ' Christian,' ex- 
cept as a compliment from one another." (Baptist and 
Reflector, March 14, 1912.) 

Any exclusive use of the word " Christian " implies the 
exclusion from Christ of all who do not follow a certain 
form of Christianity and technically go by that name. The 
word " Baptist " is a denominational name, but spiritually 
it fellowships Christians of every name. The forms of 
Christianity are but the external vehicles and signs of 
truth; and however important to preserve unimpaired these 
vehicles, and to keep unchanged these signs, salvation 
comes before them and remains individually without them, 
as largely as it may exist in them perverted. The glory of 
the Baptists is the maxim: "Blood before water, Christ 
before church, and the Holy Spirit, with the Word, before 
all, in all, and through all." 



Mr. Smith's Second Review. 

I showed that, from strictly a logical point of view, 
if the word Baptistees had been translated into English 
instead of being simply anglicized, that we would have 
had in all of our English versions of the Scriptures the 
words, "John the Immerser," instead of "John the Bap- 
tist." In his effort to meet this, Dr. Lofton says: " In the 
providence of God, the words baptizo and Baptistees, which 
are more comprehensive and characteristic than any 
translation, have retained their anglicized form." This 
is indeed a strange and most inconsistent position for 
one to assume relative to baptizo who uncompromisingly 
holds that immersion alone is authorized by the word 
of God. Furthermore, if he is right in this, then why 
should any part of the New Testament have been trans- 
lated that could have been anglicized? Brother Lofton 
well knows that all the confusion and contention over 
the action of baptism is due to the fact that baptizo 
was not translated, and that when he himself undertakes 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 173 

to convince an affusionist that baptism means to immerse, 
he must appeal to the lexicons to show that baptizo means 
that. He knows, furthermore, that if baptizo had been 
properly translated, there never would have been any con- 
troversy over the matter, and that sprinkling and pouring 
for baptism would never have been practiced. But to in- 
sist upon having baptizo translated would compel him, to 
be consistent, to demand that Baptistees be translated also, 
which would take from him his denominational name. 

Dr. Lofton, furthermore, says: "I grant that some Bap- 
tist scholars have moved the translations of the New Testa- 
ment and rendered baptizo ' immerse ' and Ionanees ho 
Baptistees 'John the Immerser;' but while the translation 
was useful, by way of comment and interpretation, Baptist 
scholars never accepted their effort as an authorized ver- 
sion." Does Dr. Lofton know that in this statement he 
virtually says immerse is not an " authorized translation " 
of baptizo, and that Immerser is not an " authorized trans- 
lation" of Baptistees? But I have shown that the Amer- 
ican Bible Union translation of 1866 has "John the Im- 
merser " instead of "John the Baptist," and that the revised 
edition of this translation (1883), while replacing "John 
the Baptist " uniformly translated baptizo " immerse." The 
Preface to this latter edition reads as follows: 

In 1865 the American Bible Union published a Revised 
English Version of the New Testament, which has been 
widely used. The demand for a new edition having been 
made, the money necessary having been furnished, the Ex- 
ecutive Board of the American Baptist Publication Society 
— to which society the home Bible work of Baptists was 
committed by the Bible Convention at Saratoga, N. Y., 
May 22 and 23, 1883— appointed Alvah Hovey, D.D., John 
A. Broadus, D.D., and Henry G. Weston, D.D., a committee 
to prepare an improved edition of this Revised New Testa- 
ment of the American Bible Union. 

Does this sound like an unauthorized version? Was that 
committee lacking in scholarship? The Baptist denomina- 
tion, through its representatives in convention assembled, 
appointed a committee to do this work, and that committee 
was composed of men from among the greatest scholars 
of the Baptist Church in its entire history, and they did 



174 Why the Baptist Name. 

not retain the anglicized form of oaptizo, but showed their 
inconsistency in not translating Baptistees. 

The Doctor fights hard to identify John's baptism with 
that commanded by Christ (Matt. 28: 19), because he 
realizes that if a baptism different in origin and meaning 
superseded John's, away goes his " prototype," and, there- 
fore, his claim to any relation whatever to John. Well, 
the link in the baptismal chain by which my friend tries 
to reach John as his " prototype " was broken by the Lord 
Jesus Christ when he said: "Go ye therefore, and make 
disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name 
of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." 
(Matt. 28: 19.) Dr. Lofton, with all of his learning, can 
never mend that link nor forge a new one that will fit in 
the chain. His claim in which he says, "We go with our 
Master, who submitted to John's baptism, and adopted it as 
his own," is a mixture of leadership hard to comprehend in 
the light of his assertion that John is his " prototype," 
which means pattern or model. Christ never adopted 
John's baptism at all, for it was John's baptism to which 
the people submitted during the personal ministry of 
Christ up till his death, as much as it was at the time 
John baptized Christ. When Christ arose from the dead, 
a new order of things was ushered in — the kingdom was 
fully established and the apostles sent forth upon their 
world-wide mission, not to preach " the kingdom is at 
hand," but to proclaim the gospel in all of its fullness and 
to baptize people into a new state. Hence the Doctor's 
assertion that John's baptism and that commanded by 
Christ were the same in "meaning and object," with the 
one single exception of " for the remission of sins," is 
without one word of truth for its support. 

According to the great Baptist historian, Thomas Armi- 
tage, the matter stands thus: 

He [John] left behind no sect to which he had given his 
name, but his disciples passed into the service of Christ, 
and were absorbed in the Christian church." ("History of 
the Baptists," page 55.) 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 175 

This is a quotation made approvingly by Armitage from 
Frederick Robertson, and it completely refutes my friend's 
contention on this matter. 

Here is more from the same author to the same effect: 

The very attempt to trace an unbroken line of persons 
duly baptized upon their personal trust in Christ, or of 
ministers ordained by lineal descent from the apostles, or 
of churches organized upon these principles and adhering 
to the New Testament in all things, is in itself an attempt 
to erect a bulwark of error. Only Gad can make a new 
creature; and the effort to trace Christian history from 
regenerate man to regenerate man implies that man can im- 
part some power to keep up a succession of individual 
Christians. Apply the same thought to groups of churches 
running down through sixty generations, and we have pre- 
cisely the same result. The idea is the very life of Cathol- 
icism. Our only reliable ground in opposition to this sys- 
tem is: That if no trace of conformity to the New Testa- 
ment could be found in any church since the end of the 
first century, a church established to-day upon the New 
Testament life and order would be as truly an historical 
church from Christ as the church planted by Paul at Ephe- 
sus. Robert Robinson has well said: "Uninterrupted suc- 
cession is a specious lure, a snare set by sophistry, into 
which all parties have fallen. And it has happened to 
spiritual genealogists as it has to others who have traced 
natural descents, both have woven together twigs of every 
kind to fill up remote chasms. The doctrine is necessary 
only to such churches as regulate their faith and practice 
by tradition, and for their use it was first invented. Prot- 
estants, by the most substantial arguments, have blasted 
the doctrine of papal succession, and yet these very Prot- 
estants have undertaken to make proof of an unbroken 
series of persons, of their own sentiments, following one 
another in due order from the apostles to themselves. 
(" History of the Baptists," page 2.) 

Our brother says: "We are simply Christians of John 
the Baptist stripe; and the stripe is articulated and differ- 
entiated by the divisions and distinctions of the religious 
world." There were children of God, but no Christians, 
during John's ministry; and this fact should convince the 
Doctor that John's ministry and baptism were not the same 
in "meaning and object" as Christ's, for it took baptism 
into the name of Christ to make one a Christian. I ad- 
mit that the " stripe " is " articulated " by the divisions of 



176 Why the Baptist Name. 

the "religious world," because the "stripe" itself has 
helped and is still helping to produce these sinful divi- 
sions by adopting a sectarian name and practicing secta- 
rian principles. 

Dr. Lofton still insists that Christ was " the Baptist 
Savior" in the face of two indisputable facts to the con- 
trary — viz.: (1) That filling the office of a baptizer is nec- 
essary to become a Baptist, and (2) that Christ never bap- 
tized any one. 

Of course I am " astounded " at Dr. Lofton's claim that 
the " first churches " were " Baptist churches," in the ab- 
sence of one scintilla of Bible proof, and so will the im- 
partial readers of this book feel the same way. If Christ 
and the apostles and prophets constitute the .foundation 
of the church (Eph. 2: 20), and John the Baptist was one 
of these prophets, I cannot see why the church and its 
members should be called after him any more than after 
any other prophet, to say nothing of the apostles. We 
know Paul would not allow members of the church to be 
called after himself nor any other apostle (see 1 Cor. 1: 10- 
13) ; and why should my friend conclude that he would 
sanction the practice of being designated by the name of 
one of the prophets — John the Baptist? We know that 
John was a prophet, because Christ said he was. (Luke 
7: 28.) The only relation he could have sustained to the 
church at all was in that capacity, no matter what he 
taught or did. He was not the " chief corner stone " of that 
spiritual temple, and it is nothing short of the ridiculous 
for Brother Lofton to insist on calling the building the 
"Baptist Church" or its members "Baptists!" If, as my 
friend claims, so much importance attaches to the name 
" Baptist," is it not most singular indeed that no New 
Testament writer ever called one of John's disciples a 
" Baptist? " This fact is so significant that the mere state- 
ment of it outweighs everything the Doctor has ever said, 
or can ever say, in defense of his party name. 

Brother Lofton dissents from my statement that the 
church was not " organized " until after the death of 
Christ, and that "the first organic manifestation of the 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 177 

church" was on the day of Pentecost. (Acts 2.) Just as 
the material composing the temple of Solomon, which was 
a type of the church, was prepared in the quarries and 
forests, so that when brought to the place of its erection 
the building went up without the sound of a hammer, in 
like manner material prepared by John the Baptist and 
the disciples during the personal ministry of Christ was 
in Jerusalem, the place where the church was to be built, 
where the chief corner stone was to be laid (Isa. 28: 16), 
and the building — the spiritual temple — arose out of this 
prepared material, which became the first or charter mem- 
bers of the church. Hence those baptized on that day as 
the result of the apostles' preaching were added to this 
new body by being baptized into it, but not with the bap- 
tism that John administered. 

But Brother Lofton thinks this cannot be true, because 
Christ said before his death : " Tell it unto the church." 
(Matt. 18: 17.) He argues from this that the church must 
have at that time been in existence, but that does not nec- 
essarily follow at all. The Scriptures frequently speak of 
things that are in the future as if they were present, as, 
for instance, " For unto us a child is born, unto us a son 
is given" (Isa. 9: 6), when, as a matter of fact, it was 
hundreds of years before Christ was actually born. So in 
saying, " Tell it unto the church," Christ was giving in- 
structions and laying down laws that should govern in his 
church when established. 

My friend insists that " the church at Jerusalem, both 
before and after Pentecost, was in every respect a Baptist 
Church." But with the one single item of immersion there 
was not a single characteristic feature between that church 
and a Baptist Church to-day. Those converted on that day 
were so influenced by the gospel preached without the Doc- 
tor's " direct work " of the Holy Spirit, they believed 
before they repented, were baptized without relating an 
experience, and that, too, for, in order to receive, the re- 
mission of their past sins. A stranger, with the view of 
finding a church on earth corresponding with the church 
in Jerusalem in the days of the apostles, would never 
12 



- : "''"-• ~ 



•J 









:-:•: 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 179 

name "Jew," though often mentioned in both the Old and 
New Testaments, was never a God-given name for the peo- 
ple of the Lord, any more than is the name " Baptist." The 
division in the house or body of Israel was wrong; and 
when it occurred, a part of God's people adopted the party 
or denominational name "Jew " in honor of the ruling tribe 
of Judah or Judah himself, just as Brother Lofton is hon- 
oring a man by calling himself a " Baptist." 

The name "Jew " was offensive to God, and by the mouth 
of a prophet he said: "And ye shall leave your name for 
a curse unto my chosen: for the Lord God shall slay thee, 
and call his servants by another name." (Isa. 65: 15.) 
This prophecy has been literally fulfilled, for Israel's na- 
tional glory has long since departed; they have been scat- 
tered to the four quarters of the globe, and their name 
"Jew " is a hiss, curse, and byword. It clings to them like 
the ivy to the oak, and will always be a reminder of their 
sinful disobedience to God. 

Brother Lofton seeks to defend his practice of putting 
the name " Baptist " with that of Christian by the follow- 
ing: 

Like "Jacob" before "Israel," the name "Baptist" was 
before r< Christ," and was the designation of the precurser 
and his principles and practices in order to Christ's appear- 
ing; and although " Christ," like " Israel," is the name which 
distinguishes the commonwealth, yet " Baptist," like "Jacob," 
is still used to designate the origin and foundation of the 
commonwealth. 

This is strange reasoning, and can be accounted for only 
on the grounds of a desperate situation, from which my 
friend, in his confusion, is seeking escape. While it is true 
that the Israelites were often called "Jacob " or " the seed of 
Jacob," it always referred to them as the fleshly descend- 
ants of Jacob, their fleshly father, and the name had no 
religious significance at all; while the name " Baptist " per- 
tains in no way to the fleshly descendants of John, but is 
used by my friend as a religious designation. The same is 
true with reference to the name " Ephraim;" and the Doctor 
can find no precedent in the names "Jacob" and "Ephraim" 
for his " denominational " name " Baptist." Furthermore, 



180 Why the Baptist Name. 

John was not the originator and founder of the Christian 
commonwealth, as the Doctor asserts, as any one may read- 
ily see by the expression, " Upon this rock I will build my 
church" (Matt. 16: 18; see also Eph. 2: 19, 20). John 
himself was never a member of the kingdom or common- 
wealth of Christ, as this plainly shows: "I say unto you, 
Among them that are born of women there is none greater 
than John: yet he that is but little in the kingdom of 
God is greater than he." (Luke 7: 28.) I will here let the 
great Baptist Church historian, Armitage, state the fact as 
to the origin of the name " Baptist:" 

"John " was his proper name, and the term " Baptist," 
added by the inspired writers, is a title of office. (" History 
of the Baptists," page 30.) 

So I am not alone in claiming that Dr. Lofton's denomi- 
national name is nothing more than an official title! 

John was called " the Baptist " from an entirely different 
circumstance to that which Dr. Lofton assigns as the rea- 
son why he is called a " Baptist." John was so called be- 
cause he baptized, while my friend is so called because he 
was baptized. Furthermore, if the name " Baptist " is due 
to the fact of one's having submitted to the ordinance, then 
John could not have become a Baptist by reason of this, 
for he was never baptized. 

I come now to the prophecy containing the " new name " 
that God said he would give to his people (Isa. 62: 1-2), 
which Dr. Lofton says does not refer to the name " Chris- 
tian," because in the same chapter they were to be called 
" Hephzibah " and " Beulah," meaning " delight " and " mar- 
ried." Now, in this sixty-second chapter of Isaiah there are 
six appellations by which the people of God were to be desig- 
nated, and each one of them denoting a different relation — 
viz.: Hephzibah, " My delight is in her;" Beulah, " My land" 
or people " shall be married;" the holy people, " saints " or 
"sanctified;" the redeemed of the Lord, "saved ones;" 
sought out, "the church" or*" separated from the world;" 
a city not forsaken, " God with his people." But the 
prophet said, " Thou shalt be called by a new name" and 
not names. 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 181 

Let us, then, seek to find this " new name " which " the 
mouth of Jehovah" should name. (1) God's people under 
the new or Christian covenant were called " sons of God " 
(1 John 1:2); but they were called this long before (Gen. 
6: 2.) (2) They were called "brethren" (Acts 6: 3), but 
were also thus designated in Gen. 13: 8. (3) They 
were called in the New Testament "saints" (Acts 9: 13); 
but this was not a " new name," either, for they were thus 
called during the days of Moses (Deut. 33: 2). (4) They 
were called "disciples" (Acts 21: 16), but this, was not 
a " new name," because they were so called in the days of 
the prophets (Isa. 8: 16). Here, then, are four names ap- 
plied to the followers of Christ, each designating a different 
characteristic or relation they sustained, but not one of 
them fufills Isaiah's prophecy concerning the " new name " 
which "the mouth of Jehovah shall name." (Isa. 62: 2.) 
It follows, then, with the certainty of a mathematical dem- 
onstration, that if we can find another name revealed in 
the New Testament by which the followers of Christ were 
called, and by which the people of God were never called 
before, that it will not only be the " new name " of which 
the prophet spoke, but that it was also given by divine au- 
thority. What, then, do we find in Acts 11: 26? "The 
disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." Thus 
we can exclaim in the language of the explorer, " Eureka!" 
for we have found it. 

The Doctor finds fault with my position because they 
were not called "Christians" more than three or four times, 
which he thinks would not have been true if that was a 
common name. In so far as the validity of the name, and 
the binding obligation of God's people to recognize and 
wear this common name is concerned, it would be their 
solemn duty to do it, if it could be shown they were never 
called Christians but one time. But the expression " first " 
called Christians indicates that they were called by this 
name after that, and because it is recorded that they were 
so called " three or four " times is no evidence that they 
were not commonly known as " Christians." 

I called my friend's attention to the fact that the words 



182 Why the Baptist Name. 

" were called " in Acts 11 : 26 were not from kaleo, but from 
chrematizo, which means by divine appointment, and 
argued that this fact met and fulfilled another item in 
Isaiah's prophecy — viz., by " the mouth of the Lord." The 
fact that an inspired man pronounced the " new name " 
made it none the less " the mouth of the Lord " doing it. 
The Doctor says that the word chrematizo is " a word of 
great variation;" but when he admits that it means "to 
be divinely instructed" or to "receive a revelation from 
God," as he has so clearly done, why should more be said 
relative to its meaning in Acts 11: 26? But he says: 

Bight out of ten uses of chrematizo in the New Testa- 
ment clearly show the oracular employment of the word; 
but in Acts 11: 26 and Rom. 7: 3 the word is translated 
" called " as a divinely recorded fact without implication 
of divine authority for the fact. 

Divine authority, indeed, has been admitted by my friend 
in the very meaning of the word employed; and while it is 
true we are not told whom God used to first call the dis- 
ciples Christians, yet the fact remains that whoever did it 
acted by divine authority. 

Again, the Doctor says: 

The staggering argument against my opponent is that 
if the word " Christian " was of divine origin, the name was 
only used twice afterwards in the New Testament, and both 
times, apparently, as a term of reproach. 

There is no doubt that the disciples were called " Chris- 
tians " by their enemies in derision, but not a single cir- 
cumstance attending the first mention of the name indicates 
that it originated in derision. James says: "Do they not 
blaspheme the honorable name by which ye are called? " 
(James 2: 7.) But this is far from saying the name was 
given in derision by the enemies of Christ, as many assert 
in this age. 

Let us sum up the items relative to the " new name " 
which God promised to bestow on his people under Christ. 
(1) It was to be a new name (Isa. 62: 2); (2) it was to 
be bestowed upon those within his house or church (Isa. 
56: 5); (3) it was a better name than that of sons and 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 183 

daughters (Isa. 56: 5); (4) it was to be an everlasting 
name that should not be cut off (Isa. 56: 5); (5) it was 
to denote a marriage relation (Isa. 62: 4 — " Beulah " means 
" married ") (as a fulfillment of this feature, see Rom. 7:4; 
2 Cor. 11: 1, 2; Rev. 22: 17) ; (6) it was to be given by the 
mouth of the Lord (Isa. 6: 2); (7) it was to be given 
when the Gentiles or nations should see (enjoy) the right- 
eousness of the Lord (Isa. 62: 2). This was done when 
Cornelius entered the kingdom. (Acts 10.) 



Dr. Lofton's Second Reply. 

Surely if the word Baptistees had been translated, we 
should have had "John the Immerser," instead of "John 
the Baptist," but in the providence of God the scholarship 
of the world has not seen fit to make the change. The 
anglicized forms of baptize and Baptist, with their Greek 
root-strength and significance, have been preserved. Bapt 
means dipt and sounds like it; and while the Latin " im- 
merse " is a correct definition, it is not as strong as the 
original, which not only speaks for itself, but enunciates 
its meaning. Many of the Old and New Testament words 
have been anglicized where the meaning and usage is 
thereby better preserved, and such is the case with baptizo 
and Baptistees. Besides all this, the translation of these 
words, at the time of our modern versions, would not have 
eliminated controversy at the hands of some of the ablest 
scholarship of the world; and such perhaps would have 
been true if the words had been translated by the Latin 
immergo from the beginning. I have already granted the 
Baptist movement in this country (1865-1883) to establish 
an authorized version of the Bible with the translation off 
baptizo by the word immerse; but as I have said before, 
it was not authorized by the Baptist denomination, though 
by a convention of scholars; and even if it had been so 
authorized, the version has become obsolete, except as an 
excellent commentary on baptism, because of some of the 



184 Why the Baptist Name. 

incongruities and absurdities into which the translation of 
laptizo in every instance involved' the word. 

How the link between John's baptism and that of Christ's 
was broken by the great commission (Matt. 28: 19) is 
asserted by my opponent, and that is all. He admits that 
John baptized Christ, and that Christ, through his disciples, 
practiced John's baptism down to his death; and he claims 
that the " remission of sins," his main contention, the 
" meaning and object " of baptism put into the commission, 
was in John's baptism before the commission. The form 
was the same; the death, burial, and resurrection sym- 
bolism was the same; reference to the " remission of sins " 
was the same; the administration on the day of Pentecost, 
based upon repentance looking to Christ in faith, was pre- 
cisely the same, except that John baptized in view of Christ 
to come, while Peter baptized in view of Christ already 
come. John's baptism constituted membership in the first 
church at Jerusalem, just as the baptism on the day of 
Pentecost did; and about as certain as that Christ sub- 
mitted to John's baptism and practiced it to the day of 
his crucifixion, he put it into the great commission, which 
says: "Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the na- 
tions, baptizing them into the name of the Father," etc. 
John and Peter alike made disciples by teaching and not by 
baptism, baptizing them after they were made. 

Brother Smith quotes Dr. Armitage ("History of the 
Baptists," page 55) to show that John "left behind him no 
sect to which he had given his name, but his disciples passed 
into the service of Christ, and were absorbed in the Chris- 
tian church" — quoted from Frederick Robertson; but just 
above this, on the same page, Dr. Armitage, the witness 
of my opponent, says: "In this sketch of John, harbinger, 
preacher, theologian, and martyr, next to his Master, we 
find the great typical Baptist of all ages." Again, this wit- 
ness of my opponent, Dr. Armitage ("History of the Bap- 
tists," page 56), says of John: "The first Baptist of his 
race is not the only man of that race whose fidelity has in- 
voked murder in cold blood. . . . Standing at the head 
of the noble army of Baptist martyrs, his tragic fidelity to 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 185 

God has been the standing sign of their own end. . . . 
John sets forth the sterling mission of true Baptists in 
sterling ideal." While Dr. Armitage did not believe that 
an unbroken organic and baptismal succession of churches, 
from the apostles, could be proved, as stated in the quota- 
tion from his " Baptist History," page 2, and while he states 
that John left no immediate sect in his own name, yet he 
held that John was " the great typical Baptist of all ages," 
that he stands " at the head of the noble army of Baptist 
martyrs," and hence he holds to the existence of the Bap- 
tist people in " all ages" as I have heretofore shown. This 
same Dr. Armitage (page 50) holds also that the baptism 
of John and Jesus were identical, or that John's baptism 
was Christian baptism. 

In order to show that John's and Christ's ministry and 
baptism were not the same in meaning and object, my op- 
ponent resorts to the desperate assumption that while there 
were " children of God " during John's ministry, there 
were "no Christians;" "for," says he, "it took baptism in 
the name of Christ to make a Christian!" So there were 
no Christians during the ministry of Christ, since my op- 
ponent assumes that nothing but the baptism of John was 
in vogue till the death of Christ. John himself was not a 
Christian, the apostles were not Christians, and Christ 
himself was not a Christian, if it took his name in his 
baptism to make a Christian. In fact, according to my 
opponent, there was not, and never had been, a Christian 
on earth till the day of Pentecost, though the " children 
of God!" Abraham and Moses saw the day of Christ and 
were glad, but those grand old believers in the promised 
Messiah were not Christians! Faith in Christ to come or 
having come, I affirm, made Christians; and what a trav- 
esty of faith this great fundamental essential to salvation, 
it is to rob it of its prerogative and office by setting up a 
theory not only of water salvation to those who do believe 
since the day of Pentecost, but of water nomenclature to 
the children of God before that day, by which, if not bap- 
tized in the name of Christ, they were not Christians! 
Well, they were not " called Christians " after Pentecost, 



186 Why the Baptist Name. 

though baptized in the name of Christ, until at Antioch; 
and, after all, if those thus baptized were the " children of 
God " up to Antioch without the name, the Scriptures seem 
to make but little difference as to the name after Antioch. 
Never was there as much ado about nothing as about this 
name " Christian," however important the name of Christ. 
Every man ever saved by the blood of Christ " through 
faith in his name " was a Christian in fact, whether so 
called or not; and it is a fearful reflection upon God, who 
sent John to make disciples and baptize them through 
faith in Christ to come, to rob those disciples of the name 
" Christian," if that name made any distinction between 
the " children of God." 

My opponent still opposes my proposition that Christ 
was " the Baptist Savior," upon the ground that to be a 
Baptist one must be a baptizer, and that Christ never bap- 
tized any one. But he was himself baptized, and through 
his agents, the apostles, he had baptism administered > 
which not only made him a Baptist, but also his apostles 
Baptists, according to the theory of my opponent; and upon 
this theory that to be a Baptist one must be a baptizer, 
there are, and have been, millions of Baptists, to say noth- 
ing of the baptized. 

I have never claimed that the " first churches were Bap- 
tist" because of John's organic relation to the kingdom, 
or because, in any sense, he was head of the church. Christ 
alone is Head of the church which is organically and pre- 
eminently called after his name, or the name of God, where 
the church is divinely designated; but the Scriptures no- 
where speak of the " Christian Church " or the " Baptist 
Church;" and yet, in fact, they were both Christian and 
Baptist, which are perfectly consistent terms. The New 
Testament churches were not designated by either name, 
nor often by any name, but subsequently those people who, 
against the unscriptural divisions and corruptions of early 
Christianity, stood for apostolic order, doctrine, purity, and 
simplicity, are historically called " Baptists." They ever 
looked to John and the Jordan for their baptism upon re- 
pentance and faith as found in the gospel; and through the 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 187 

centuries they were the relentless antagonists of baptismal 
regeneration, of infant baptism, of hierarchy and priest- 
hood, of mediumistic salvation through the ordinance and 
the church, of union between church and State, of magis- 
terial interference with conscience, and in favor of church 
independency, religious and political liberty, and of the 
word of God as the sole rule of faith and practice among 
Christians. Every division of the religious world, then as 
now, claimed to be Christian, however diverse from scrip- 
tural doctrine, organism, and practice; and, in the nature 
of things, these orthodox and martyr people, following the 
baptism and principles of John, took the name of " the 
great typical Baptist of all ages," as Dr. Armitage, the wit- 
ness of my opponent, appropriately calls him. 

The word " Baptist " is a symbolic name signifying the 
whole gospel of grace and salvation, and is, therefore, not 
a sectarian name; and while it is a denominational dis- 
tinction, without conflict with the word " Christian," it is 
so by force of separation from every form of sectarian and 
heretical errors represented by denominations calling them- 
selves " Christian " under various partisan and characteris- 
tic names not scriptural. If all Christians were one with 
us in gospel order, organism, and doctrine, there would be 
no use of the name as a denominational distinction; and 
if we called ourselves " Baptists " at all, it would simply 
be to indicate the typic or prototypic character of the 
" first Baptist martyr," as Dr. Armitage well calls him. 
We wear the " Baptist " name as absolutely subordinate to, 
and characteristic of, Christ himself; and by the name we 
only distinguish ourselves as the church of Christ and 
Christians apart from others we deem unscriptural in gos- 
pel order, organism, and doctrine, who claim to be Chris- 
tians. The divisions in the Corinthian church about which 
my opponent writes were partisan divisions under partisan 
names with a partisan purpose. Not so with the " Bap- 
tist" name, the title of the first great Baptist, significant 
of the fundamental doctrine and practice of the gospel, 
symbolic of a whole gospel, and which, as the name of a 
church, is as easily found in the New Testament as the 



188 Why the Baptist Name. 

word "Christian," now applied to all churches — heretical, 
sectarian, or otherwise. 

That the first church was organized and at work before 
the day of Pentecost, I think I have abundantly shown. 
The typical construction of Solomon's temple is just as 
applicable to the organization of this church before Pente- 
cost as on the day of Pentecost. This church began with 
two disciples as members and Christ as Head; other mem- 
bers were added as the little church grew to twelve; Jesus 
gave it instructions as a " church " in the treatment of 
personal offenses (Matt. 18: 17); and in the choice of Mat- 
thias (Acts 1: 15-26) to fill the place of Judas, upon the 
motion of Peter and by the vote of the one hundred and 
twenty " brethren " assembled at Jerusalem, we have an 
instance of the complete organization and action of a 
church of Jesus Christ upon democratic principles. The 
apostles did not regard themselves as a self-perpetuating 
body with the power to fill vacancies; and with due re- 
gard to the sovereign authority of the church of Christ 
at Jerusalem, " the pillar and ground of the truth " — and 
the only representative of Christ on earth in his absence — 
this matter of election was referred to the whole body of 
" brethren " constituting this church, and they acted pre- 
cisely as they did (Acts 15) in the case of the Antioch 
message. Hence, on the day of Pentecost, the three thou- 
sand baptized were " added " to this church already ex- 
istent; and there is no scripture at all for the position of 
my opponent that anybody gathered on the day of Pentecost 
for the purpose of organizing a church — as " charter mem- 
bers." 

The suggestion of my brother with reference to Matt. 
18: 17, that the expression, "tell it unto the church," was 
" laying down a law that should govern in his church 
when established." The facts in the case go to show that 
Peter's question and Christ's instruction, however it ap- 
plied to the future, had reference to the present as well. 
Prom that time forth Peter was under this law; and if a 
case in point had happened the next day, he would have 
been bound to obey it. The church was then and there; 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 189 

and there can be no inference from the language of Christ 
that he had any reference to a church yet to be established, 
else he would have so expressed himself. 

My opponent says that, with the exception of immersion, 
there is not a single characteristic feature of likeness be- 
tween the church at Jerusalem and a Baptist church of 
this day. First, he says that those who were converted 
on the day of Pentecost were so influenced by the gospel 
without the direct work of the Holy Spirit, that they be- 
lieved before they repented and were baptized, without re- 
lating an experience, in order to the remission of their 
past sins. How does he know that the Holy Spirit did not 
work with the word in order to the conversion of these 
people? And how does he know that they related no ex- 
perience, or made no confession? It cannot be shown that 
all the details of that occasion were given in the record. 
As I have shown heretofore, the historical belief of the 
truth led these people to conviction with pierced hearts 
and to cry out: "Brethren, what shall we do?" This was 
not faith unto the saving of the soul, but conviction from 
belief of what they had heard, evidently under the opera- 
tion of the Holy Spirit, whose office is to convict of sin; 
and in this dilemma Peter tells them to repent and be 
baptized in the name of Jesus Christ — that is, trusting in 
Christ for the remission of their sins, of which baptism 
was the sign. The parallel case in the conversion of Cor- 
nelius and his house shows that the remission of their 
sins was in the name of Christ believed on; and after the 
gift of the Holy Spirit, they were baptized. All this is 
Baptist to the core; and the democratic action of the 
church before the day of Pentecost, in the election of Mat- 
thias, is also Baptist to the core. 

I agree that a body should derive its name from its 
head; and no people have ever been more scrupulous than 
Baptists in holding Christ as the Head of the church and 
in holding themselves as churches of Christ. We claim to 
be the churches of Christ; and our subordinate denomi- 
national distinction as " Baptists " never, in a Baptist 
mind, nor in the mind of anybody else, nor in the mind of 



190 Why the Baptist Name. 

God, had the slightest conception as being in conflict with 
the headship of Christ. None save such as my opponent 
and his people, who pose under the name " Christian," and 
who hold to the most unchristian theory of salvation, and 
who are the most sectarian of sects, ever made this charge 
upon Baptists. The New Testament, as I have repeatedly 
shown, uses a variety of designations of the church, and, 
in the main, uses the word " church " or " churches " with- 
out any additional designation, never speaks of " the 
Christian Church," and it ill becomes a new-made sect with 
its fatal errors, as recognized by the Christian world, to 
find fault with the word " Baptist," which is only a char- 
acteristic designation of the churches of Christ, and sym- 
bolic or typical of the fundamental doctrine and practice 
of the gospel as first set up by " the great typical Baptist 
of all ages," as Dr. Armitage styles him. We do not refuse 
to wear, as the bride of Christ, our Husband's name; but 
our Husband was a Baptist in practice and doctrine; and 
as he was thus symbolically characterized at the hands of 
the " great typical Baptist of all ages," whose baptism and 
teaching he adopted, Baptists have thus characterized them- 
selves and the churches of Christ. Not only so, but this 
has been made necessary since the Christian world has 
divided into sects antagonistic to the true mode and de- 
sign of baptism, upon which has been based multiplied and 
conflicting orders, organisms, and doctrines contrary to the 
gospel and primitive Christianity, which Baptists pecul- 
iarly and characteristically have always represented. The 
word " Baptist " is the synonym of martyr orthodoxy — of 
primitive Christianity — after the manner and character of 
John the Baptist, " the great typical Baptist of all ages." 
The word " Baptist " misrepresents nothing of Christ or 
Christianity, but is symbolic and expressive of its whole 
scheme of grace. 

I admitted that " Israel" was the permanent name given to 
the old commonwealth; but, as I said before, it was just as 
often called "Jacob " after the new name was bestowed. 
My opponent says: "While it is true that the Israelites 
were often called 'Jacob,' or ' the seed of Jacob,' it always 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 191 

referred to them as the fleshly descendants of Jacob, their 
fleshly father, and the name had no religious significance 
at all." In this he is utterly mistaken. I could quote 
scores of passages in which "Jacob " and " Israel " are both 
used in the same sentence interchangeably, as, "Jacob 
shall rejoice and Israel be glad" (Ps. 14: 7); in which 
God claims to be " the God of Jacob " (Ex. 3: 6) ; in which 
Christ is promised as " a star out of Jacob " (Num. 24: 17) ; 
in which Jehovah calls himself the " Mighty One of Jacob " 
(Is. 49: 26.) In all these passages and a hundred more 
the name of Jacob is referred to in a religious and not a 
fleshly sense. Even in the New Testament, Luke says of 
Jesus (1: 33): "He shall reign over the house of Jacob 
forever." So far, then, as the analogy from "Jacob " and 
" Israel " goes, the word " Baptist," which is synonymous 
with " Christian," and which was before, may be used to 
designate the origin and foundation of the new common- 
wealth. John did not establish or build the church, but he 
laid the foundation in doctrine and practice, and furnished 
the first material for its construction as the organic ex- 
pression of the kingdom. 

The expression (Luke 7: 28) which says, "He that is 
little in the kingdom of God is greater than he [John]," 
does not imply that John was not in the kingdom of God, 
though not in the church which is the organic expression 
or type of the kingdom. " The law and the prophets were 
until John: from that time the gospel of the kingdom of 
God is preached, and every man entereth violently into it." 
(Luke 16: 16.) John himself preached this gospel of the 
kingdom of God and baptized in order to visible entrance 
into it; and he was spiritually in this kingdom and doing 
its visible work before its organic manifestation. The 
kingdom was before its visible organism; and while the 
least in the kingdom, at the time Jesus spoke, enjoyed 
greater knowledge and privilege than John, this did not 
exclude John from the kingdom, the foundations of which 
he laid after the law and the prophets were at an end. 
If John was not in the kingdom of God, where was he? 
He was filled with the Holy Spirit from his birth; and 



192 Why the Baptist Name. 

he was certainly a Christian as he preached Christ and 
his kingdom, baptized Christ, and kept on preaching Christ 
and baptizing for two years afterwards. 

My opponent quotes Dr. Armitage ("History of the Bap- 
tists," page 30) in favor of the position that the term 
" Baptist " was the " title of John's office." Granted, but 
it was a scriptural title of characteristic significance given 
by divine inspiration, and symbolic of the teaching and 
practice of " the first great Baptist preacher," as Alexander 
Campbell called him, or the " great typical Baptist of all 
ages," as Dr. Armitage styles him. In John's case the 
name " Baptist " was not due to the fact of having been 
baptized himself, for God himself made John a Baptist 
and so called him without baptism in order to begin bap- 
tism, which was " of heaven " and not " of men," and in- 
troduced by one " sent " of God for the purpose of teaching 
and baptizing. 

Now as to the " new name." (Isa. 62: 1-4.) It is perfect- 
ly clear that the promise, " Thou shalt be called by a new 
name," is expressed almost in the same breath in the 
words, " Thou shalt be called Hephzibah." Only one verse 
intervenes between the promise of the name and the name 
itself, which was to be given to Zion and Jerusalem, and 
the name " Beulah," which was to be given to their " land." 
The names at the end of the chapter, " The holy people," 
" The redeemed of Jehovah," " Sought out," "A city not 
forsaken," are simply supplementary and elaborative of the 
new name of Zion and Jerusalem, and also the " Beulah " 
name of their " land" which was no more to be divorced 
from them. " Delight" (Hephzibah) was the name which 
was to express the state of the divine mind toward his 
people when restored from their captivity and to the per- 
manent possession of their " land" which was a glorious 
premonition and promise of a more glorious state under 
Christianity. " The nations should see their righteous- 
ness " and " all kings their glory," but there is no intima- 
tion here of the conversion of these nations and kings be- 
yond a preparatory consideration or enjoyment of this 
exalted state of Zion and Jerusalem expressed possibly by 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 193 

the Hebrew (raah) " see." In a superlative and new sense 
" Delight " would be the name of God's covenant people 
when restored and exalted; and the name has no sem- 
blance of the word " Christian," which is the natural de- 
nomination of the personal followers of Christ. In fact, 
the name was never given to the Jewish Christians, who 
were called " Nazarenes " (Acts 24: 5), but was first given 
to the Gentile Christians at Antioch, and which ultimately 
applied to all Christians. " Nazarenes " is a new and a 
proper name of Christ's followers, who himself was " called 
a Nazarene" (Matt. 2: 23); and the earliest Christian 
sect long went by that name, so calling themselves. We 
are all Nazarenes as well as Christians. 

I insist that chrematizo, a word of various rendering, 
while oracular in its employment according to its eight 
uses in the New Testament for that purpose, is translated 
in Acts 11: 26 and Rom. 7: 3 after its ordinary or natural 
signification, as found in later Greek according to the lexi- 
cographers, and simply means " called " as a divinely re- 
corded fact without implication of divine authority for the 
fact. Luke records the fact that Paul belonged to the " sect 
called Nazarenes" (Acts 24: 5), as stated by Tertullus; 
but the record of this fact by divine authority does not 
make the fact of divine authority. Just so Luke records 
the fact (Acts 11: 26) that "the disciples were called 
Christians first at Antioch," but there is no implication 
in his statement that God so named them by any inspired 
man; for if such had been the fact, the fact as such would 
have been recorded. 

I insist again that the staggering argument against my 
opponent is that if the word " Christian " is of divine 
origin and is the "new name" predicted in Isa. 62: 1, 2, 
the name was only used twice after its origin, and both 
times apparently alluded to as a term of reproach. The 
most significant fact is that only Peter, among the New 
Testament writers, thus alludes to the name, while Paul, 
James, John, Jude, and Hebrews in twenty Epistles never 
mention the name, never apply it to a disciple or church 
while giving various other titles, and all this after the dis- 
13 



194 Why the Baptist Name. 

ciples were called Christians at Antioch! If the name was 
of divine authority, predicted in Isaiah and fulfilled in 
Acts, it is singular and inexplicable that the New Testa- 
ment writers did not use it and insist upon its usage as a 
fulfillment of Scripture and apply it in every instance 
where the name was applicable, but they never so used it 
at all. It is significant that Christ honors the church at 
Philadelphia in that she " did not deny his name " (Rev. 
3: 8), in that he promises a "white stone" to those that 
overcome with a " new name written " upon it, which none 
could know save he that received it (Rev. 2: 17); in that 
Christ speaks of his " own new name " which he will 
write upon those who overcome (Rev. 3: 12), and yet John 
in his Revelation never mentions the word " Christian " as 
the " new name " of God's people. It is quite easy for us 
to infer, in order to support a darling theory, a thousand 
things from prophecy and obscure passages of Scripture, 
but the facts in the case settle the question. " Upon this 
rock [Peter] I will build my church " Romanism was in- 
ferred and papacy was born; and so the " Christian 
Church," as it calls itself, largely infers itself from Isa. 
62: 1, 2 and from Acts 11: 26. 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 195 



VI. 

WHY NOT DROP THE NAME 'BAPTIST 
AND TAKE THE NAME 'CHRISTIAN?'" 



Mr. Smith's First Review. 



The author says: 

Why then not drop the name " Baptist," and take the 
name " Christian? " Baptists claim to be Christians, the 
followers of Christ and his teachings, in the widest and 
deepest significance of the term. We are Christian Bap- 
tists — Baptist Christians — the Baptist people and churches 
of Christ; but for several reasons we cannot give up the 
name of " Baptist." 

The question Dr. Lofton here raises is, indeed, a signifi- 
cant one. It is so because of the far-reaching principle in- 
volved, bearing as it does directly upon the great subject of 
unity among the children of God. It has been most clearly 
shown that the use Brother Lofton makes of the name 
" Baptist " is not of divine origin, for the name was never 
by divine authority applied to a religious organization. 
Hence he can only use it as a name by which a religious 
denomination is designated, thus hindering to this extent 
the union for which the Son of God prayed. (John 17: 20, 
21.) The reasons he assigns for not dropping the name 
" Baptist " and taking the name " Christian " are very much 
lacking in scriptural support, and this fact should cause the 
reader to suspect that Dr. Lofton could find none. If he 
could have found one passage clearly justifying the use he 
makes of the name " Baptist," who doubts that he would 
have given it to us? The fact that "Baptists claim to be 
Christians " by no means justifies the use of the denomina- 
tional name " Baptist," but, on the other hand, should be 



196 Why the Baptist Name. 

urged as a reason why they should not be so called. The 
name " Baptist " cannot he used scripturally to designate 
God's people; while the name " Christian," even according 
to Dr. Lofton himself, can be so used. Therefore this sbows 
the name " Christian " to be a common name — that is, com- 
mon to all of God's people. Now, I put this question 
squarely to Brother Lofton — viz.: Can one be a Christian 
and not be a "Baptist?" If he says "Yes," does he not 
clearly admit that the name " Baptist " is not synonymous 
with the name " Christian? " If not synonymous, do not 
the two names, " Baptist " and " Christian," designate two 
kinds of people? Let it be distinctly understood that I 
raise no question as to whether or not " Baptists " are Chris- 
tians in character; but if, as Dr. Lofton claims, they are 
Christians, they are undoubtedly unscriptural in wearing 
the denominational name " Baptist." The Doctor could not, 
if his life depended upon it, produce one passage in the 
word of God in which the followers of Christ were called 
" Baptist Christians " or " Christian Baptists." And yet 
this he is compelled to do in order to sustain his position. 
Once more I press the question: Since, as Brother Lofton 
has told us, John was called a " Baptist " because he ad- 
ministered the ordinance of baptism, how can it be possi- 
ble for any one who never administers the ordinance of 
baptism to become a " Baptist? " 

One of the reasons the Doctor assigns for not giving up 
the name " Baptist " is this : " Not only so, but, under God, 
he revealed the fundamental principles and practices which 
now distinguish Baptists from all other people; and we 
can no more give up the name than the! principles of our 
Baptist prototype." Unless Brother Lofton is willing to say 
unequivocally that " Baptists " are the only Christians in 
the world, by what principle of New Testament teaching 
does he claim the right for " Baptists " to be " distin- 
guished" from all other Christians? The disciples of New 
Testament times did no such thing with the sanction of any 
inspired man, and why should " Baptists " do it now? Some 
in the church at Corinth undertook the " distinguishing " 
business, but an apostle vetoed their effort in the most em- 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 197 

phatic way. (See 1 Cor. 1: 10-13.) Hence it is proper to 
ask: Since Brother Lofton can find no divine authority for 
applying the name " Baptist " to the followers of Christ, is 
he not equally as guilty of the sin of causing and perpetu- 
ating division among God's people now as were those who 
held to party names in the church at Corinth? But the 
only fundamental principles John taught were faith, re- 
pentance, and baptism for the remission of sins; and while 
the Doctor repudiates one of these, he cannot claim the 
other two as in any way peculiar to the " Baptists." There- 
fore the "fundamental" principles of John's ministry can 
have nothing to do with the denominational name " Bap- 
tist." I have shown not only from the word of God, but 
also from eminent " Baptist " scholars, that John baptized 
people in order that they might receive the remission of 
sins, and this is one fundamental of John's ministry the 
Doctor will not accept. I deny, then, in the most emphatic 
way, that John is in any sense the prototype of the " Bap- 
tists." 

The author asserts as justification for his denominational 
name that " the Baptists according to their name are a 
death, burial, and resurrection people, believing a death, 
burial, and resurrection gospel, and practicing a death, bur- 
ial, and resurrection baptism." This is a remarkable argu- 
ment in defense of a denominational name! Do not all re- 
ligionists believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of 
Christ? Are there not a number of religious bodies that 
"practice a death, burial, and resurrection baptism" who 
are not called "Baptists?" How, then, can any of these 
things be peculiar to the " Baptists? " No one at all famil- 
iar with " Baptist " doctrine will call in question the claim 
of "Baptist" peculiarities. One of these peculiarities is 
stated by Brother Lofton in Italics as follows: " There are 
no other people mho can properly administer baptism in 
accord with the death, burial, and resurrection significance 
of the ordinance" Gentle reader, do you get the full im- 
port of this wonderful statement? Crack the shell, and you 
have revealed the presumptuous assumption of " apostolic 
succession " with the imposition of " holy hands! " Even a 



198 Why the Baptist Name. 

superficial reader will be forced to exclaim: "My, what 
stress Dr. Lofton lays upon water! Surely he must believe 
in 'baptismal regeneration,' else he would not lay such 
great emphasis upon the administration of the ordinance." 
He imagines that he can trace, link by link, the " Baptist " 
Church of which he is a member back to the very chair of 
the apostle Peter. But this is only a dream, a figment 
which fades away into nothingness by the time it reaches 
the sixteenth century. This the Baptists of the North and 
in other sections have long since learned, in consequence of 
which they have abandoned the old theological delusion. 
When the Doctor starts to pick up the links in the chain of 
" apostolic succession," he will find several different kinds 
of "Baptists," including Mormons, Roman Catholics, and 
Episcopalians, to dispute his claim. But even if these 
should all step aside and give the Doctor an open field, he 
will find many stumps to impede his progress. He will be 
compelled to take in people who refused any name except 
"Christian" and who taught baptism in order to the re- 
mission of sins. Dr. Lofton's denomination came into ex- 
istence not earlier than the sixteenth century. This human 
tradition of "apostolic succession" is the taproot of the 
Doctor's " close-communion " dogma, which renders the 
" Baptists " extremely inconsistent in their teaching and 
practice. They teach that Methodists and Presbyterians are 
the children of God, and yet refuse to let these children of 
God eat the Lord's Supper with them! 

The Doctor here assigns to those who claim to be Chris- 
tians only a position which is not warranted by the facts 
in the case. Hear him: " The denial of the Holy Spirit 
in conversion through repentance and faith; the claim that 
the Spirit enters the penitent believer only in water." This 
does great injustice, and places the teaching of those against 
whom he is here contending in a false light before the pub- 
lic. I believe as much in the work and influence of the 
Holy Spirit in conversion and sanctification as Dr. Lofton 
or any one else; but as to how the Spirit exerts this in- 
fluence, we differ the width of the poles. He asserts that 
the Spirit operates directly — that is, without medium; while 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 199 

I hold that he does his work through medium — that is, the 
instrumentality of his word. The word of God is the sword 
of the Spirit. (See Eph. 6: 17.) I do not believe the 
" Holy Spirit enters the penitent only in water." I believe 
through the agency of his word he enters the sinner's heart, 
thus producing faith, repentance, and obedience, and that 
after baptism the Spirit as the heavenly Guest takes up his 
abode in the heart. "And because ye are sons, God hath 
sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, 
Abba, Father." (Gal. 4: 6.) Mark you, he was not thus 
sent to make them sons, but because they were sons. This 
accords exactly with the promise on Pentecost, "And ye 
shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2: 38), 
which was given to those baptized. 

The only evidence Dr. Lofton can offer for his theory of 
the direct and mysterious operation of the Spirit in conver- 
sion is his feelings, but such testimony is without divine 
sanction. Such testimony destroys the Bible doctrine of 
salvation by faith in that it becomes a matter of absolute 
knowledge. Such a system of religion is without either 
faith or hope, for hope is based upon faith. Now, if the 
Holy Spirit speaks to men in a "small voice" that their 
sins are forgiven, does not the matter resolve itself into self- 
consciousness? And is not self-consciousness knowledge? 
Where, then, does faith come in, and where does hope rest? 
Consciousness can determine what takes place in one's own 
mind and heart as the result of exercising these faculties; 
but with reference to what takes place in the mind of an- 
other, it must be faith, and not consciousness or knowledge. 
I am conscious that I believe; but if I knew in the absolute 
sense, where could there be any faith? 

The Doctor has not one correct idea of God, Christ, and 
the Holy Spirit that he did not get from the Bible; and if 
there are any who are guilty of " denying the Holy Spirit 
in conversion," they are those who deny the words of the 
Spirit. The Holy Spirit said, " Repent ye, and be baptized 
every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto [or for] 
the remission of your sins;" but Dr. Lofton repudiates this 
by claiming that sins are remitted before baptism. 



200 Why the Baptist Name. 

Again lie tells us that " the worst-abused word in history 
is the word ' Christian.' " I am not inclined to deny this, 
but can see no reason on this account why the name should 
be abandoned. Is not the Bible itself the worst-abused book 
in the history of the world? Is it not made the origin for 
every " ism" and every religious fad and fancy? The ques- 
tion should be not whether the name u Christian " is " the 
worst-abused word in history," but is it a Bible name for 
God's people? The name " Smith" is badly abused. There 
are many scoundrels wearing that name, but I shall not 
abandon it because of that fact. I was born into this name 
by flesh and blood, just as I was born spiritually into the 
name " Christian," and I intend to wear both names until 
God shall take me home. The Lord's Supper is abused; 
and if Brother Lofton rejects the name " Christian " be- 
cause it is abused, then for the same reason he should re- 
ject the Supper. He does not believe that any save those 
immersed at the hands of an ordained " Baptist " minis- 
ter have any right to eat the Supper, and yet there are mil- 
lions of unimmersed people partaking of it. The Doctor 
admits that the name " Christian " is a " sacred " name. 
How, then, could it have been applied to the disciples in 
derision by the enemies of Christ? " How unequal are the 
legs of the lame!" 

But the Doctor refuses the name " Christian " on the 
ground that " we should lose our historic and characteristic 
identity as a people, and sacrifice our specific mission for 
the truth of God and the good of the world." "With refer- 
ence to this I remark: Suppose " our historic and character- 
istic identity as a people" fails to harmonize with the his- 
toric and characteristic identity of the people revealed in 
the New Testament as the people of God? This is the issue 
which should be settled by the clearest proof from divine 
testimony before the question of names should be consid- 
ered. In addition to this, what " specific mission for the 
truth of God " can the " Baptists " claim over many others? 
(1) The Doctor admits that Methodists, Presbyterians, and 
many others are regenerated, have been born again, are the 
children of God, and will go to heaven when they die. (2) 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 201 

If they are thus fitted for heaven, then what specific truth 
do the "Baptists" have which they need? If they have 
truth enough to get them to heaven, what more do they 
need? I can think of nothing the " Baptists " have that 
many of the denominations have not, save close communion 
and the name "Baptist." (3) My conclusion, then, is that 
the Baptist Church has no truth, specific or otherwise, that 
is essential to salvation not held by others, and, hence, have 
no right to exist " as a people " separate from all of God's 
children. 



Dr. Lofton's First Reply. 

My opponent seeks to make the point that, in the de- 
nominational use of the word " Baptist," I hinder the unity 
of God's people; especially so, as he claims, since I find 
no scriptural warrant for the use of the name. If the word 
" Baptist " had not been a scriptural name, and significant 
of John's ministry, the Scriptures never would have so 
used the name. As I have abundantly shown, there was 
a man, named "John," who was scripturally called "the Bap- 
tist;" and that his title implied not only the baptism he 
administered, but the teachings which his baptism demand- 
ed and signified in his propagandism of the fundamental 
'principles and practices of the gospel. This we call " Bap- 
tistic" after the name of our first Baptist propagandist; and 
as John's baptism and teachings were essential to the com- 
ing and kingdom of Christ, and adopted by Christ and his 
apostles, Baptists, who start with John at the Jordan, nat- 
urally retain their denominational patronymic. The name 
" Baptist " is not only scriptural and appropriate to the 
people who bear it, but it is significant of their doctrine 
and practice, and is not in conflict with Christ nor the 
gospel he gave us. Not only do we retain this name, but 
the world has insisted upon calling us "Baptists;" and, 
with our profession and history, we could not get rid of 
the name if we wanted to. 

Baptists do not seek, in wearing their name, to prevent 



202 Why the Baptist Name. 

Christian unity. We are just what we have always been 
from the days of John the Baptist till now; and, during 
the black ages of persecution — and to within a recent date 
— we were never approached upon the subject of Christian 
unity, except at hands of uniformity acts which meant 
unity or death; and, to this day, I know of no body of 
Christians who want to unite with Baptists, except at the 
expense of Baptist conscience and position, Baptist prin- 
ciples and practice. To drop the name " Baptist " and unite 
with others under the name " Christian," and to thus 
symbolize with what we deem to be unchristian error and 
heresy, would gain nothing for Christ or Christianity. In 
fact, there is no such designation in the Scriptures as " the 
Christian church" or "Christian churches;" and until my 
Brother Smith finds such designation, it ill becomes him 
to be castigating me for my Baptist name. He asks me 
this absurd question: "Can one be a Christian and not be 
a Baptist?" He says, if I say "Yes," then I admit that 
the name " Baptist " is not synonymous with the name 
"Christian;" and, therefore, that I hold the two names 
designate two different kinds of people. Why, every man 
who is a Christian is, to that extent, a Baptist; for every 
true Baptist is a Christian. If Brother Smith is speaking, 
technically, the answer might be different. I admit that 
there is no express passage in the Scriptures which speaks 
of " Baptist Christians " or " Christian Baptists," but they 
are there all the same. I know of no passage which speaks 
of the " Christian church," but Brother Smith would say 
it is there all the same. My opponent asks if John was 
called a "Baptist" because he baptized, who can be a Baptist 
that does not administer the ordinance? Lots of us Bap- 
tists do administer the ordinance; and we make Baptists 
of all those we baptize. All of John's followers are Bap- 
tists. 

One of the reasons assigned in my tract for not giv- 
ing up the name "Baptist" is this: "Not only so, but un- 
der God, he (John) revealed the fundamental principles 
and practices which now distinguish Baptists from all oth- 
er people; and we can no more give up the name than the 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 203 

principles of our Baptist prototype." My opponent re- 
plies: 

Unless Brother Lofton is willing to say unequivocally that 
" Baptists " are the only Christians in the world, by what 
principle of New Testament teaching does he claim the 
right for " Baptists " to be " distinguished " from all other 
Christians? The disciples of New Testament times did no 
such thing with the sanction of any inspired man, and 
why should "Baptists" do it now? Some in the church at 
Corinth undertook the " distinguishing " business, but an 
apostle vetoed their effort in the most emphatic way. (See 
1 Cor. 1: 10-13.) Hence it is proper to ask: Since Brother 
Lofton can find no divine authority for applying the name 
" Baptist " to the followers of Christ, is he not equally as 
guilty of the sin of causing and perpetuating division among 
God's people now as were those who held to party names in 
the church at Corinth? But the only fundamental princi- 
ples John taught were faith, repentance, and baptism for 
the remission of sins; and while the Doctor repudiates one 
of these, he cannot claim the other two as in any way 
peculiar to the " Baptists." Therefore the " fundamental " 
principles of John's ministry can have nothing to do with 
the denominational name " Baptist." I have shown, not 
only from the word of God, but also from eminent " Baptist " 
scholars, that John baptized people in order that they might 
receive the remission of sins, and this is one fundamental 
of John's ministry the Doctor will not accept. I deny, 
then, in the most emphatic way, that John is in any sense 
the prototype of the " Baptists." 

Baptists do not claim to be the only Christians in the 
world; but they are, of necessity, denominationally dis- 
tinguished from all other Christians in the world. The 
divisions in the Corinthian church were partisan sects, 
under humeri names — not only so, but a sect in the name 
of Christ — just as we have them now; and these divisions, 
though suppressed, were typical of the divisions which have 
split the churches since the apostolic age till now. The 
word " BAPTIST," however, is not a sectarian name in 
conflict with Christ and Christian unity, but it is symbol- 
ically expressive of a whole gospel and of a gospel denomi- 
nation; and by reason of these sectarian divisions the 
Baptist name has naturally followed and become attached 
to the New Testament churches which have succeeded or 
developed since the apostolic age (in the face of every divi- 



204 Why the Baptist Name. 

sion and usurpation), at the hands of a people in every 
age and country stigmatized as Anabaptists (Baptists) un- 
der different names. By remaining apostolic, Baptists 
have caused no divisions among Christians. We follow 
the fundamental principles and practices of the first Bap- 
tist; and I deny that my opponent and his Baptist authori- 
ties have proven that the first Baptist preached baptism 
for the remission of sins. On the contrary, I claim to 
have shown that John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, the apos- 
tles, and the New Testament writers demonstrate that re- 
pentance toward God and faith toward Jesus Christ are 
absolutely and alone essential to salvation — to regenera- 
tion and the remission of sins — and that baptism is the 
symbolic declaration of the fact; and upon this principle 
Baptists have continued apostolic and are a separate de- 
nomination by virtue of their scriptural origin and without 
any responsibility for the Christian divisions which have 
sprung up since the apostolic age. Under the conditions 
we are necessarily called " Baptists." 

My statement that " the Baptists according to their 
name are a death, burial, and resurrection people, believ- 
ing a death, burial, and resurrection gospel, and practicing 
a death, burial, and resurrection baptism," is met by my 
opponent with the questions: "Do not all religionists be- 
lieve in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ? Are 
there not a number of religious bodies that practice a 
death, burial, and resurrection baptism who are not called 
' Baptists? ' " My statement is that Baptists, according to 
their name, are " a death, burial, and resurrection people," 
etc. The word " Baptist," from baptism, symbolizes this 
whole death, burial, and resurrection doctrine and prac- 
tice; and hence the sublime consistency, or scripturalness, 
of the name. All religionists do not believe, evangelically, 
in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ; and while 
there are others than Baptists who immerse, they either 
hold to other forms of baptism, or hold to an unscriptural 
design of baptism, which makes it impossible to hold to 
the death, burial, and resurrection significance of baptism 
as the symbol of the saving truths of Christianity. Hence 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 205 

my proposition : " There are no other people who can prop- 
erly administer baptism in accord with the death, burial, 
and resurrection significance of the ordinance." The ques- 
tion of " apostolic succession " is not involved at all, but 
only the question of propriety. To be sure, there are a 
few smaller bodies of Christians, under different names, 
such as Mennonites, Winnebrennarians, and the like, who 
practice baptism with the same design that Baptists do; 
but they have usually sprung from Baptists and are of 
Baptist persuasion, with minor differences. 

I lay no stress, as Brother Smith seems to think, upon 
the " link succession " of Baptist churches; and the validity 
of baptism, as administered by Baptists, depends wholly 
upon the authority of a scriptural church wherever found 
— having gospel order, polity, principle, and practice, as 
Baptists maintain. Wherever this order is not found, what- 
ever the agreement, or cooperation, along moral and spir- 
itual lines, Baptists organically part with other Christians; 
and hence the great bugaboo about " close communion" 
which is specifically a collective church act, and confined 
to the local organism which administers it. If Baptists, 
as now existent and organized, had not originated until the 
sixteenth century, as my opponent affirms, we are in line 
with the Scriptures and bear the honorable name of that 
great Baptist whose doctrine and baptism we follow — as 
the doctrine and baptism of Christ; but long before the 
sixteenth century, and down to the days of the apostles, 
and from the days of John the Baptist, there have been 
Baptists, however broken and scattered by persecution, 
and however irregular, at times, in the order and organism 
of the gospel. They have survived the centuries of de- 
struction, restored their order and organism, and given to 
the world centuries of martyrdom, truth, liberty, and evan- 
gelism, which grace the pages of history with the most 
precious record of devotion to Christ and humanity that 
history records. 

My opponent charges me with assigning to his people 
a position unwarranted by the facts in the case, as 
follows: "The denial of the Holy Spirit in conver- 



206 Why the Baptist Name. 

sion through repentance and faith; the claim that the 
Spirit enters the penitent believer only in water." He as- 
serts his belief in the work and influence of the Spirit in 
conversion and sanctification emphatically, but differs 
from me as to the how he exerts that influence. He charges 
me with holding that the Spirit operates directly without 
medium; while he holds that the Spirit works through 
medium — that is, instrumentally, by the Word. I hold that 

THE SPIRIT OPERATES DIRECTLY BY MEANS OF THE WORD; but, 

in his case, the Word is the sole agency, apart from the 
Spirit, and not the instrumentality of the Spirit, in the 
conversion of the sinner. Herein lies the singular and 
fatal error of my opponent, who lodges the divine efficiency 
in the Word alone. The Holy Spirit does not personally 
dwell in external mediums, neither in word nor water; and 
when, like the " wind," he " breathes " upon the soul, he 
accompanies his word to the mind and heart of the sinner. 
In this contact of the Spirit with spirit (Job 22: 8) he so 
reveals truth as to produce conviction and quicken repent- 
ance and faith — the elements of spiritual birth. (1 Cor. 
2: 13-16; John 3: 8; 1 Cor. 3: 6, 7; Jer. 31: 33; Ezek. 37: 
1-14.) Thus alone is the word of God the "sword of the 
Spirit " and " the power of God unto salvation " to the dead 
soul, the blind eye, the deaf ear; and the Spirit must fill 
the preacher and accompany the word to convert the sin- 
ner. Even at best, millions hear and read who are never 
converted; and even the saved are "scarcely saved." "No 
man can come to me, except the Father which sent me 
draw him" (John 6: 44) — "except it were given unto him 
of my Father" (verse 65). 

According to Brother Smith, the Holy Spirit maintains 
only an abstract force as contained in the Word, without 
any concrete contact with the sinner who discursively be- 
lieves and repents, but is still left unregenerate and un- 
pardoned and liable to damnation until obedient through 
the medium of water; for my opponent says that it is not 
nmtil " after baptism " that the Spirit " takes up his abode 
in the heart." Up to this time the Spirit has only ab- 
stractly and apart operated by proxy through the media of 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 207 

word and water, in order to his entrance into the heart; 
and the whole process of faith and repentance, and so of 
regeneration and remission, has been wholly human, 
through external agencies and appointments, in order to a 
change of state and of actual contact with the Holy Spirit, 
who was not personally in the Word nor the water. 

Gal. 4: 6, "Because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the 
Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father," 
simply gives the reason why the sons of God receive the 
Spirit of adoption, and has no reference to the time or 
manner of receiving the Spirit. John 1: 12 settles the fact 
that we are the children of God — born of God — by faith 
and not baptism. "The gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2: 
38) refers to the extraordinary enduement of the Holy 
Spirit, and not to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit which 
comes with regeneration. Peter calls the baptism of the 
Spirit (Acts 10: 45) "the gift of the Holy Spirit," as in 
Acts 2: 38, and when "received" (Acts 10: 47) he there- 
upon commanded water baptism — that is, after reception 
of the Spirit. 

My opponent says that the only evidence I can offer for 
my theory of the direct and mysterious operation of the 
Spirit in conversion is my " feelings," which " testimony," 
he says, " is without divine sanction, and destroys the Bible 
doctrine of salvation by faith, in that it becomes a matter 
of absolute knowledge." According to his theory of con- 
version by the Word apart from the direct operation of 
the Spirit, he cannot judge of my experience; but I affirm 
that my " feelings " are not the only criteria of my con- 
version. Saving faith as wrought through the Spirit, with 
the Word, must develop its own consciousness; and as 
faith works by love, with the joy and peace of the Holy 
Spirit, it must be accompanied by feeling. Faith, to begin 
with, in the process of conversion, though based upon cred- 
ible testimony, according to the Word, does not come as a 
matter of knowledge, much less " absolute knowledge;" but 
in its saving and sanctifying development, through exer- 
cise and experience, it leads to experimental knowledge. 
"We know that we have passed from death unto life be- 



208 Why the Baptist Name. 

cause we love the brethren." (1 John 3: 13.) And again: 
" The Spirit himself beareth witness with our spirit that 
we are the children of God." (Rom. 8: 16.) In many- 
things of faith and grace the Bible declares that we 
" know." 

It is utterly impossible to conceive our religion, here or 
hereafter, as devoid of consciousness, feeling, and knowl- 
edge growing out of faith itself — the source from which 
flows most of the streams of knowledge, consciousness, and 
emotion. The theory of my opponent is that of a cold, in- 
tellectual, discursive faith, in conversion, dependent solely 
upon the record of the Holy Spirit, but apart from any 
contact with the Spirit — until " after " the mechanical 
process of regeneration and remission in water; and in the 
light of Spirit-born religion, it is impossible to see how 
such a theory could give consciousness, feeling, or experi- 
mental knowledge. The theory implies, through word and 
ivater alone, a psychological and ethical change, but not a 
spiritual regeneration and remission, and it is inconceiv- 
able, after such a process, that the Spirit could enter a 
heart thus self-prepared; or, if it did, how such a heart 
could be conscious of his presence or salvation. 

According to my opponent, regeneration is a man's re- 
pentance and faith through word and water. This is Alex- 
ander Campbell's doctrine: "All the converting power of 
the Holy Spirit is exhibited in the divine Record." (" Chris- 
tianity Restored.") In the address of the Disciples to the 
Ohio Baptist Convention, 1871, they said: "With us re- 
generation includes all that is comprehended in faith, re- 
pentance, and baptism, and so far as it is expressive of 
birth, it belongs more properly to the last of these than to 
either of the former." With Baptists regeneration is God's 
work of changing man's disposition and securing its first 
exercise by the Spirit through the Word, and in the pro- 
duction of repentance and faith. James (1: 18) clearly 
puts it when he says: "Of his own will he brought us 
forth by the word of truth." Not abstractly and apart 
from the " word of truth," but through the power of his 
"will" in the direct operation of truth upon the mind 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 209 

and heart of the dead, blind, deaf sinner who could neither 
see nor feel the truth until the Spirit, " like the wind," 
breathed upon him through the truth. 

My opponent tacitly agrees with my statement that 
the word " Christian " is the most abused word in history, 
but he says this is no reason why the name should be 
abandoned. Of course not, and this is what I said in my 
tract: "While Baptists claim that sacred name, we should 
lose our historic and characteristic identity as a people 
and sacrifice our specific mission for the truth of God and 
the good of the world, if we gave up our symbolic name for 
that of ' Christian ' alone." I based the statement upon the 
ground that there is a whole raft of errors and heresies 
posing under the name of " Christian " — even some that 
practice immersion as we do; and to give up a certain for 
an uncertain sound " alone " would bring confusion and 
misunderstanding, to say nothing of surrendering our his- 
toric and characteristic identity under a perfectly scrip- 
tural name. My opponent says there are other good things 
abused, but for that reason should not be given up, such as 
the Lord's Supper; but I do not give up either. He says 
there are millions of unimmersed people partaking of the 
Lord's Supper, and that I do not believe that any save the 
immersed, at the hands of an ordained Baptist preacher, 
have the right to eat the Supper; but the only thing I claim 
is that immersion is a prerequisite to the Lord's table in a 
Baptist church. He says, again, that I admit that the 
word "Christian" is a "sacred name;" and then asks: 
" How, then, could it have been applied to the disciples in 
derision by the enemies of Christ? " " How unequal are the 
legs of the lame!" he applies to me. Let me say, in reply, 
that it was perfectly natural for the enemies of Christ to 
call his followers " Christians; " but whoever did it, they 
gave the right name, and it is a " sacred name" even if the 
enemy did it. 

My opponent charges me with refusing the name " Chris- 
tian " on the ground that Baptists "should lose their 
historic and characteristic identity as a people, and sacri- 
fice their specific mission for the truth of God and the 
14 



210 Why the Baptist Name. 

good of the world." My language, in the tract, is that 
"while Baptists claim that sacred name" (Christian), we 
could not give up our " symbolic name (Baptist) for that of 
Christian alone,'" without the sacrifice mentioned. The sup- 
position of my opponent that our " historic and character- 
istic identity as a people " fails to " harmonize with the 
historic and characteristic identity of the people revealed 
in the New Testament as the people of God," is quite to the 
point. That is just what Baptists most humbly and sin- 
cerely claim — the said harmony, as I have abundantly 
shown in this discussion. Again, my opponent asks: 
" What specific mission for the truth of God can Baptists 
claim over many others" — such as Methodists, Presbyte- 
rians, and the like? Baptists held "the truth of God" be- 
fore Luther, Calvin, or Wesley; and whatever of truth 
Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Methodists hold, with all 
their errors of organism and pedobaptism, they get from 
the same source from which Baptists have gotten it, from 
the beginning, but they do not hold the truth unmixed. 
There is much specific truth they got from the Baptists 
alone, and much specific truth they still need that Baptists 
hold; and though they have specific truth enough to make 
them Christians, in the saving sense, this does not argue 
that Baptists should not exist as a distinct people in the 
maintenance of the whole of God's truth unmixed, as they 
have ever sought to do. 

Salvation by grace, justification by faith alone, was held 
by the Baptist people before the days of Luther, when the 
most deadly heresies were wrought through the external 
forms of Christianity in contravention of this great central 
truth of the gospel. Infant baptism and baptismal regenera- 
tion, transubstantiation — the whole system of priestly, cere- 
monial, and ecclesiastical mediation in the salvation of the 
sinner — still in vogue in various forms, together with every 
phase of rationalism, are the antipodes of Baptist position; 
and Baptists, the ancient witness against these things, will 
continue to exist as they have always done, without re- 
sponsibility for the division of Christianity, witnessing still 
against these errors and for the whole truth as it is in Jesus. 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 211 

Mr. Smith's Second Review. 

The word " Baptist " is a scriptural name in the sense 
that it is in the Scriptures, but as Armitage, the great 
Baptist historian, says, it is not a proper name and only 
denoted a " title or office." Therefore, John was scriptural- 
ly called the Baptist with special reference to the practice 
of baptizing people, and in this sense and because of this 
fact, I am willing to be called " Smith the Baptist," be- 
cause I baptize or immerse people. But neither Dr. Lofton 
nor I have any scriptural right to apply the name " Bap- 
tist" to the church of God, nor to a single member. of the 
church who does not baptize. 

If the world insists upon calling Brother Lofton and his 
people " Baptists " because they believe in and practice im- 
mersion, then for the same reason the world should call 
all who believe in and practice immersion " Baptists " 
also. But I suspect that the chief reason why the world 
calls them " Baptists " is due to the fact that they them- 
selves, as Dr. Lofton has told us, in the seventeenth cen- 
tury, " took the general denominational name of Baptist," 
for it was about that time the Baptist denomination came 
into existence. 

The Scriptures teach most emphatically that there should 
be no schism or division in the body or church of Christ 
(1 Cor. 12: 25); and unless Dr. Lofton can show that the 
name " Baptist " was ever applied to the body or church 
of Christ, he can never refute the charge that the name 
as he uses it is "sectarian;" and unless he can show that 
the institution called the " Baptist Church " contains all of 
the children of God on earth, he can never refute the charge 
that it is a " sect " among sects, and is thus causing and 
perpetuating division among professed Christians. There- 
fore, in wearing this denominational name the " Baptists " 
are preventing " Christian union " to that extent. 

The Doctor says: " I know of no body of Christians who 
want to unite with Baptists, except at the expense of Bap- 
tist conscience and position, Baptist principles and prac- 



212 Why the Baptist Name. 

tice." In New Testament times there was only one body 
of Christians (Eph. 4:4) with which any one could unite; 
therefore, if the " Baptist Church " is a religious body that 
does not, as the body established by Christ did, contain all 
the Christians on the earth, then no one under any circum- 
stances should unite with it, for the reason that it is an un- 
authorized and unscriptural body. Baptists may be, not as 
" Baptists," but in spite of being " Baptists," members of 
the body of Christ, and whatever makes them " Baptists " 
are the things that they should educate their consciences 
to abandon for the sake of Christian union. Of course no 
one should violate his conscience, but we all should re- 
member that the word of God and not our conscience is the 
sole guide in religious matters. Therefore, if our con- 
science does not harmonize with the teachings of the 
Scriptures, we must not try to make the Scriptures har- 
monize with our conscience, but regulate our conscience 
by the Bible, as did the apostle Paul. 

Brother Lofton remarks : " In fact, there is no such desig- 
nation in the Scriptures as ' the Christian church ' or 
'Christian churches;' and, until my Brother Smith finds 
such designation, it ill becomes him to be castigating me 
for my Baptist name." If I were guilty of using the words 
" Christian church " in the sense of not including all of 
God's children on earth, or of using the words " Christian 
churches " in the sense of not including all Christians in 
the localities of the churches so designated, the Doctor's 
point would be well made. But as the matter really stands, 
his remarks upon this phase of the subject go for naught. 
If I were speaking of the institution founded by Christ in 
contrast with heathenism, I might designate it by the 
words " Christian church," but ordinarily I prefer to speak 
of it as the oody of Christ, which includes all of God's 
children on earth wherever they may be. When Paul ad- 
dressed "the church of God which is at Corinth" (1 Cor. 
1: 2), he included every member of God's church in that 
city. Likewise, when I speak of the church of God in 
Nashville, I include by these words every member of God's 
church in this city. I do not know them all; God alone 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 213 

knows them. I can find congregations of worshipers that 
worship like the New Testament teaches, but I cannot say- 
that these are all the children of God in Nashville. Dr. 
Lofton has, like thousands of others, wholly misappre- 
hended the teaching on this point of those he terms 
" Campbellites;" hence it becomes an easy matter to mis- 
represent them. I believe that God has children in sec- 
tarian institutions, wearing sectarian names and practi- 
cing unscriptural things otherwise in religion, and I plead 
with all such to lay aside these and be Christians only. 
To say that it cannot be done is to repudiate an inspired 
apostle. (1 Cor. 1: 10-13.) 

In answer to my question, " Can one be a Christian and 
not be a Baptist?" Dr. Lofton replies: "Why, every man 
who is a Christian is, to that extent, a Baptist; for every 
true Baptist is a Christian." He admits by the words " to 
that extent " that to be a " Baptist " is something more 
than being simply a Christian, and to admit " that every 
true Baptist is a Christian " does not relieve the matter, 
for, in addition to being a " Christian," he is also a " Bap- 
tist!" Now, my question is: Why be a Baptist when you 
can be a Christian without being a " Baptist? " 

The Doctor says: "We make Baptists of all those we 
baptize." I do not doubt this; but what is it that makes 
them " Baptists? " It is not the gospel of Jesus Christ, for 
it made simply Christians, without any sectarian or de- 
nominational name or peculiarities to differentiate some 
from others. The word of God is the seed of the kingdom 
(Luke 8: 11); and if my friend's life depended on it, he 
cannot get out of that spiritual seed a " Baptist " church, 
any more than he can find a hickory-nut tree in an acorn. 

He says: "Baptists do not claim to be the only Chris- 
tians in the world; but they are, of necessity, denomina- 
tionally distinguished from all other Christians in the 
world." Now, I have shown that the Christians of New 
Testament times were not denominationally distinguished 
from each other, and that when some in the church at 
Corinth undertook to do that way, an inspired apostle re- 
buked them for so acting, saying they were actuated by a 



214 Why the Baptist Name. 

carnal spirit. (1 Cor. 3: 1-8.) If it was wrong and sinful 
to be " denominationally distinguished " then, what " ne- 
cessity" could have arisen to make it right now? And in 
the absence of any new revelation from God on the subject, 
how can Brother Lofton know that he is doing right in 
this matter? 

He remarks: "The divisions in the Corinthian church 
were partisan sects under human names — not only so, but 
a sect in the name of Christ — just as we have them now." 
That is a true picture of the Corinthian church, and all 
sects now, including the " Baptist " Church, are partisan 
and under human names. To apply the name of Christ to 
an unscriptural institution would no more make it scrip- 
tural than to apply the name " Baptist " to a scriptural 
institution would make the name " Baptist " so used scrip- 
tural. Any religious institution larger than a local con- 
gregation and yet smaller than the entire church or body 
Of Christ, which includes all of God's children on earth, is 
an unauthorized body, and is a man-made institution pure 
and simple, and all the logic in the world cannot dis- 
prove it. 

Our brother does not deny that others besides the " Bap- 
tists " believe in a " death, burial, and resurrection gospel," 
but tries to justify himself by saying: "My statement is 
that Baptists, according to their name, are a death, burial, 
and resurrection people." Well, seeing that people can be- 
lieve in and practice a " death, burial, and resurrection gos- 
pel " without the name " Baptist," why contend for the 
name, especially since it is divisive? To meet this diffi- 
culty, he insists that "there are no other people who can 
properly administer baptism in accord with the death, 
burial, and resurrection significance of the ordinance." 
This statement is based upon his claim, not that the " Bap- 
tists " can trace an unbroken line of succession back to the 
apostles, for he has surrendered that, but because they 
teach that " Baptist," from " baptism," symbolizes this 
whole death, burial, and resurrection doctrine and prac- 
tice. This to the thoughtful reader will appear as a very 
flimsy support for such a far-sweeping claim, for it has 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 215 

been most clearly shown that the name " Baptist " is not 
derived from the ordinance of baptism, but from the office 
of a baptizer. In order to justify his practice of " close 
communion," he says it " is specifically a collective church 
act, and confined to the local organism which administers 
it." Now there is not one word of Bible proof to sustain 
this naked assertion. Eating the Lord's Supper is as much 
an individual act as either praying or singing, and he 
would have as well confined these acts to the " collective 
church" as to so confine the communion. The saying of 
Christ, " For where two or three are gathered together in 
my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matt. 18: 20), 
has as much reference to eating the Supper as it does to 
anything else. He put the number (two) as small as it 
could be to have a gathering at all, and it is as true that 
he is with one as it is that he is with a thousand. There- 
fore, while the church is required to assemble to eat the 
Supper, it is for the same reason they are to sing and pray 
— viz., mutual edification. But if there were only one 
Christian on earth, it would be his or her duty to remember 
the Lord's death and proclaim his coming by observing 
the Supper. There were disciples in New Testament times 
who were not organized in the sense in which my friend 
uses the term. (Acts 14: 23; Tit. 1: 5.) Does it stand 
to reason that these unorganized churches went from week 
to week, month to month, and perhaps years, without cele- 
brating the Lord's death? The church exists all the time, 
whether assembled or not, and any number have a perfect 
right, in the home or elsewhere, to eat the Supper without 
the presence or assistance of an " ordained " preacher. 
Our brother is holding to the aosurd and ridiculous delu- 
sion that the " Baptist " Church is the sole repository and 
guardian of the memorials Christ left on earth emblematic 
of his body and blood! 

He introduces once more the work of the Holy Spirit in 
the matter of conversion, and I shall, by the grace of God, 
show that he has no footing in God's word for such a 
theory. I knew very well, when it was shown that Dr. 
Lofton's position relative to salvation took the whole mat- 



216 Why the Baptist Name. 

ter out of the realm of faith, where God's word places it, 
and transferred it to the realm of absolute knowledge, that 
he would be put to sea without chart or compass in his 
efforts to defend himself. His use of the word "know" 
furnishes him no help, for that word has more than one 
meaning. In addition to meaning " absolute knowledge " 
or " cognizance," it means " approval " and " strong assur- 
ance." "I know thy tribulation." (Rev. 2: 9.) Here it 
is used to express aosolute knowledge. "And then I will 
profess unto them, I never knew you." (Matt. 7: 23.) In 
this passage it means " approval." "Let all of the house 
of Israel therefore know assuredly" (Acts 2: 36), and, 
" For we know that if the earthly house of our tabernacle," 
etc. (2 Cor. 5: 1). Here it means to believe fully, or 
understand. The only place for absolute knowledge in the 
whole matter is concerning what takes place in the heart 
of man, in so far as he is concerned. What, then, takes 
place in man? Simply conversion, wrought by the gospel 
of Christ and consisting in faith, repentance, and obedience, 
or baptism. These things are matters of experimental or 
absolute knowledge; but pardon or forgiveness of sins does 
not take place in man at all, but in the mind of God, who 
forgives, and we can be assured of the fact only by God 
revealing it to us. 

The all-important question, then, is: How does God re- 
veal the fact of pardon to man? My friend says that God 
does this by a " direct " work of the Holy Spirit, and 
quotes Rom. 8 : 16, " The Spirit himself beareth witness with 
our spirit, that we are children of God," to sustain his con- 
tention. Now this passage simply states the fact that the 
Spirit bears witness, but gives not the slightest hint as to 
how he does it. Why, then, should Dr. Lofton conclude 
that he does it " directly," or without medium? Despite 
his denial of the Spirit's influence without medium, his 
very words on the subject are unintelligible and perfectly 
meaningless without that idea. Hear him: " I hold that 
the Spirit operates directly by means of the Word." He, 
evidently means that the Spirit either goes before the word, 
follows the word, or accompanies the word without being 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 217 

in the word, but in either case there would be an operation 
of the Spirit without medium. I deny it, and call for the 
proof from God's word and not his feelings. Now why- 
should we conclude that the Holy Spirit bears witness rel- 
ative to the forgiveness of sins in any way different from 
that in which he bears witness concerning other matters? 

The mission of the Holy Spirit to this earth is clearly 
set out in this passage: "And when he is come, he will re- 
prove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judg- 
ment." (John 16: 8.) (1) How was he to reprove or con- 
vict the world of sin? He was to do this by testifying. 
" But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto 
you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which pro- 
ceedeth from the Father, he shall bear witness of me." 
(John 15: 26.) (2) How was he to testify or bear wit- 
ness? " Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he 
shall guide you into all the truth: for he shall not speak 
from himself; but what things soever he shall hear, these 
shall he speak: and he shall declare unto you the things 
that are to come." (John 16: 13.) (3) How was the 
Spirit to speak in giving his testimony? " Which things 
also we speak, not in words which man's wisdom teacheth, 
but which the Spirit teacheth." (1 Cor. 2: 13.) (4) 
Through what means or medium did the Holy Spirit use 
words to bear witness? " But when they deliver you up, 
take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall 
be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For 
it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father 
which speaketh in you." (Matt. 10: 19, 20.) These were 
instructions from Christ to his apostles, and show beyond 
a doubt that God ordained that the witness of the Spirit 
should be given in word through the inspired apostles. 
Now, in harmony with this fact and these scriptures, we 
have this statement after the descent of the Spirit to begin 
his work of bearing witness: "And they were all filled with 
the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, 
as the Spirit gave them utterance." (Acts 2: 4.) Let the 
reader bear in mind that the Holy Spirit is now bearing 
witness of the divine Sonship of Christ and also concerning 



218 Why the Baptist Name. 

" remission of sins " or pardon. There were a number 
convicted of sin on that day, and the question is: How 
was it done? The divine record says: "Now when they 
heard this, they were pricked in their heart." (Acts 2: 
37.) In so far as the record goes, we have sinners con- 
victed of sins, and only two things preceding this convic- 
tion — viz., hearing and faith in what they heard. They 
heard the witness of the Spirit given in the words which 
the apostles spoke, and there is not one intimation in all 
the circumstances that the Holy Spirit exerted any other 
influence in convicting these sinners than that in the words 
spoken by the apostles. If Dr. Lofton thinks he can find 
his " direct impact " of the Spirit here, let him proceed to 
the task. 

The next witness of the Spirit in this case is with 
reference to the pardon or forgiveness of the sins of those 
convicted. Hence those convicted of sin were told in an- 
swer to this question, " Brethren, what shall we do? " to 
" Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name 
of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins." (Acts 2: 
38.) The record says: "They then that received his word 
were baptized." (Acts 2: 41.) Now when they did what 
the Holy Spirit commanded them to do, with the promise 
of remission of sins, did they not have in the promise of 
the Spirit the witness of the Spirit with their spirits that 
they were the children of God? If not, why not? I still 
insist with the greatest emphasis that the only evidence 
Dr. Lofton can bring into court that the Holy Spirit bears 
witness of sonship or pardon by a " direct impact " is his 
feelings, which, in the absence of any divine revelation to 
that effect, is simply no evidence at all. 

My friend says my position is: "The word is the sole 
agency, apart from the Spirit, and not the instrumentality 
of the Spirit, in the conversion of the sinner." He has 
demonstrated his inability to state my position on almost 
a single item. I do believe that the word is used instru- 
mental^ by the Spirit in the conversion of a sinner, but 
with no additional influence to that which is resident in 
the word. He makes conversion as profound a miracle as 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 219 

was that of raising Lazarus from the dead, which grows out 
of his fundamental error of "inherited total depravity." 
Lazarus was wholly passive in being brought to life, while 
sinners are active in the matter of conversion. The follow- 
ing from the very discriminating Presbyterian writer, T. 
W. Jenkyn, in his book on " The Union of the Holy Spirit 
and the Church," expresses my position with reference to 
the work of the Holy Spirit in the redemption of man. 
He says: 

" The constant and permanent presence of the saving pow- 
er and influence of the Holy Spirit is in the word of truth. 
This influence is present in the Christian, and in the church, 
only as the Spirit's word, the fixed shrine of the Holy Spirit, 
as possessed and held by them, in its purity and in its en- 
tireness. Where the word is not, there is no converting 
power, and the saving influences of the Holy Spirit are not. 
Whoever pretends to the influence and power of the Holy 
Spirit without the word, or against the word, or beyond the 
word, is an impostor." " The Holy Spirit is ever present, 
without fluctuation, diminution, or uncertainty, as surely 
and abidingly, as magnetism in the loadstone, or light in 
the presence of the sun." " The Holy Spirit influenced the 
minds of the apostles by inspiring into them new truths; 
but influenced the three thousand converts, only by the in- 
strumentality of the truths delivered by the apostles." 

The Lord says concerning his word: " It shall not re- 
turn unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I 
please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereunto I sent 
it." (Isa. 55: 11.) It came through the inspired apostles 
as a life unto life or of death unto death. (2 Cor. 2: 15, 
16.) It will either lead us into salvation or condemn us at 
the last day. Its power is expressed in passages like the 
following: " Is not my word like fire? saith Jehovah; and 
like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?" (Jer. 
23: 29.) Dr. Lofton may speak of the word alone, but I 
remind him that Jehovah said it is like fire and a hammer 
that crumbles the rock. Furthermore, Jehovah did not say, 
" Is not my word," with the " direct impact of the Holy 
Spirit," like fire, and the hammer that breaketh the rock 
in pieces? My friend read that into the text. David said: 
" This is my comfort in my affliction; for thy word hath 
quickened me." (Ps. 119: 50.) It is written: "He send- 



220 Why the Baptist Name. 

eth his word, and healeth them." (Ps. 107: 20.) The 
blessed Lord said: "It is the spirit that giveth life; the 
flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I have spoken unto 
you are spirit, and are life." (John 6: 63.) Paul says: " For 
the word of God is living, and active, and sharper than any 
two-edged sword, and piercing even to the dividing of soul 
and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and quick to discern 
the thoughts and intents of the heart." (Heb. 4: 12.) 
Dr. Lofton disputes Paul by saying the word is of no 
avail without the " direct impact of the Holy Spirit." 

The word of God says, "We walk by faith" (2 Cor. 5: 
7) ; but my friend says he is walking by knowledge, that 
the Holy Spirit, " like the wind," " breathed upon him 
through the truth." Now, neither the Holy Spirit nor his 
influence is anywhere in the Bible compared to the wind, 
but the Doctor must get the mysterious and incomprehensi- 
ble mixed up in the matter of salvation from some source. 
Hence he quotes or refers to the words of Christ to Nico- 
demus, " the wind bloweth where it will," and applies them 
to the Holy Spirit; but they refer to the spirit of man, 
which is the subject of the new birth. So he displaces 
faith with knowledge, in that he has a " direct impression " 
of the Spirit. This position does away also with hope, for 
faith is the basis of hope. I will ask Dr. Lofton if he 
knows in the absolute sense that there is a God; and if he 
does not so know God, then he can only know him in the 
sense of faith like the ancient worthies of whom it is said: 
"And these all, having had witness borne to them through 
their faith, received not the promise, God having provided 
some better thing concerning us, that apart from us they 
should not be made perfect." (Heb. 11: 39, 40.) The very 
best that he can do with his feelings is to let them occupy 
a place in the realm of faith concerning the evidence of 
pardon; and as God has nowhere intimated that any kind 
of feelings is an evidence of the forgiveness of sins, his 
feelings can only bear witness to the sincerity of his ac- 
tions. 

He quotes the words of Christ, " No man can come to me, 
except the Father that sent me draw him" (John 6: 44), 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 221 

and seems to jump to the conclusion that the " drawing " 
is done by some " direct " work of the Spirit. Now the 
part quoted only states the fact that sinners must be drawn 
to Christ by the Father without stating how the drawing 
is done. The best Greek writers employ the word helkuo, 
translated " draw " in this passage, in the sense of allure 
or entice, and not in the sense of impelling by arbitrary 
means. Mankind is drawn toward any object which they 
are made to believe will gratify their desires. God is said 
to have drawn people by " cords of a man " and by the 
" bands of love." (Hos. 11: 4.) " Cords of men " can mean 
nothing more than the methods of men in exciting the 
desires of their fellows, and " bands of love " mean evi- 
dences of love toward the sinner. Now all this is in the 
gospel of God's grace, which is the greatest evidence of 
God's love to man, and which contains facts and argu- 
ments to show man his ruined condition and the way out 
of his sad state. Hence the next verse (John 6: 45) is the 
key which unlocks the passage quoted and shows how God 
draws sinners to Christ. " It is written in the prophets, 
And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath 
heard from the Father, and hath learned, cometh unto 
me." God teaches sinners through the gospel (Matt. 28: 
19-20), and offers them life and pardon. All who hear and 
learn, that can be drawn at all, are through this means 
drawn to Christ. The cross is God's magnetic power to 
draw sinners; and when they turn away from the preach- 
ing of the cross, they refuse the only power God has for 
that purpose. The fact that man, the sinner, has the 
power to resist and reject Christ argues that he has the 
power to accept and obey him. Will the Doctor say a sin- 
ner is so dead he cannot reject Christ when offered to him? 
If not, then why will he say that he is so dead he cannot 
accept Christ without a " direct work " of the Spirit? Does 
it take any more will power to receive a thing than it 
does to reject it, all things being equal? If a sinner has 
the power to deliberately make up his mind not to accept 
Christ, why has he not the power to deliberately make up 
his mind to accept him? Is it not because the sinner 



222 Why the Baptist Name. 

possesses this power that God will damn him for not ac- 
cepting Christ? According to my friend's theory of con- 
version, millions of sinners can charge God in the day of 
judgment justly as being the cause of their doom because 
of his failure to convert them by the " direct impact " off 
his Spirit. My God, who is the God of the Bible, is the 
author of no such doctrine, and I sincerely pray that the 
day may speedily come when men, in the name of religion, 
will cease to misrepresent him to the world. 

Dr. Lofton refers to Alexander Campbell's position on 
the matter of spiritual influences, who said: "All the con- 
verting power of the Holy Spirit is exhibited in the divine 
Record." Has my good friend brought forward one pas- 
sage to disprove this? Mr. Campbell was reared a Presby- 
terian, and was a minister in that faith before becoming 
associated with the Baptists. Hence he had Dr. Lofton's 
M experience of grace," which he takes for a " direct " work 
of the Spirit, with all the feelings claimed to be evidence 
of the fact, and yet he repudiated all this after learning 
the way of the Lord more perfectly. I believe as much in 
feelings in religion as Dr. Lofton, but assign them their 
face value and their proper place. Feelings must be the 
result of faith, and not faith the result of feelings. I 
feel that I am a child of God because I believe it, and do 
not believe I am a child of God because I feel like it. 
Feelings are deceptive, and are the same in the belief of 
a falsehood as in the belief of the truth. Hence I desire 
something more certain than my feelings as an evidence 
of my acceptance with God. Any one's feelings that con- 
tradict the word of God must be wrong and deceptive. 
Jesus Christ put the promise of salvation after baptism : 
" He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." (Mark 
16: 16.) Dr. Lofton's feelings put the promise before 
baptism. Gentle reader, which will you accept — the Doc- 
tor's feelings or the word of the living God? 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 223 

Dr. Lofton's Second Reply. 

Whether the word " Baptist," as to John, was a titled 
or proper name, it is scriptural and of God; and it in- 
volved the whole significance of John's teaching and prac- 
tice. It would have been absolutely meaningless if it had 
not implied repentance toward God and faith in Christ to 
come, upon which was based the remission of sins, of 
which baptism was the sign. This is the fundamental 
Baptist position of to-day; and in these characteristics of 
John's doctrine and practice we follow this great " first 
Baptist preacher," as Alexander Campbell called him, or this 
" great Baptist type of all ages," as Dr. Armitage styles 
him, and so characteristically take his title. The chief 
reason why the world calls us " Baptists," as my opponent 
" suspects," is not because we took the general denomina- 
tional name of " Baptist " in the seventeenth century, but 
because these people, called " Baptists," have been traced, 
historically, down through the Christian ages, who, in con- 
tradistinction to others, have peculiarly maintained simple 
gospel order as established by Christ and his apostles and 
as fundamentally set up by John the Baptist. 

The Baptists have never created any schism in the body 
or church of Christ. History runneth not back to the con- 
trary of their existence in the Christian world, and through 
them the apostolic order of the churches has been brought 
up and maintained among men. All that Romanism and 
Protestantism could do to crush out their spontaneous pro- 
duction and reproduction among all nations failed; and 
while we do not contain all the children of God on earth, 
we contain that scriptural and apostolic element which, 
from the beginning, has preserved gospel order, organism, 
ordinance, and doctrine from perversion, if not destruc- 
tion. If others have divided the body of Christ into 
heretical and sectarian organisms, the Baptists are not re- 
sponsible for it; and if the Baptists have preserved gospel 
prder and truth, the name " Baptist," even if it was not 
scriptural, would not make us a sect. Better " Baptist " 
without sectarianism than " Christian " red-hot with sec- 



224 Why the Baptist Name. 

tarianism and only a few years old under its claim of be- 
ing the only church of God. Surely for twenty centuries 
Christ has somewhere had a true and visible church on 
earth. 

J said that I knew of no body of Christians who want 
to unite with Baptists, except at the expense of Baptist 
conscience and position; and my opponent suggests that 
Baptists should educate their conscience out of the things 
that make them Baptists for the sake of Christian union. 
Baptists are profoundly conscious of having a scriptural 
conscience; and for this reason they have been martyrs to 
conscience through the ages. In New Testament times, I 
grant, there was but one general or spiritual body of Chris- 
tians with organic or visible bodies in many communities, 
and they were all one in faith and practice, so that an in- 
dividual member of one church could be a member of any 
other church, but that is not the case now; and while 
Baptist churches do not contain all the Christians on earth, 
and since there are multitudes of sectarian and heretical 
churches whose members could not be received, as such, 
by Baptist churches, this does not signify that Baptists 
have not a scriptural conscience, neither does it signify 
that Baptists are sectarian, nor that they are an unscrip- 
tural body. Even in the New Testament disorderly or 
heretical members were excluded from the churches. 

My brother seems to take a very liberal view when he 
says that the church of God, or Christian church, includes 
all the children of God on earth, and all the children of 
God in any given community when so designated. I agree 
with him as to the universal spiritual church, or kingdom 
of God, as including all of God's children in heaven as 
well as on earth; but the local churches, in city or coun- 
try, do not contain all the people of God unless all the 
people of God are affiliated with them in these localities. 
The church of God at Corinth embraced all the children 
of God in Corinth affiliated with that church, and there 
was but one church at that time in that city. There is no 
such thing as the church of God in Nashville, except in the 
spiritual sense; organically, we can only speak of the 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 225 

churches of God in Nashville; and I differ with my oppo- 
nent in saying, if he means organically, that all the people 
of God are in the Nashville churches unless affiliated with 
them. He speaks of God's children in " sectarian insti- 
tutions " in this city, and he can only mean Baptists or 
immersionists, for he cannot include Methodists, Presby- 
terians, and the like, who are not the children of God ac- 
cording to his theory of baptism. Really he means only 
his people when he speaks of the church of God, church 
of Christ, Christian church, in any local or organic sense, 
and that it includes all the people of God on the earth! If 
I misunderstand him upon this point, I ask that he will 
correct me. 

I deny, in saying that " every one who is a Christian is 
to that extent a Baptist," I so admit that to be a Baptist 
is something more than being a Christian. The word 
" Baptist " is perfectly synonymous with the word " Chris- 
tian" in the spiritual sense. A man may be a Christian 
without being a Baptist in the technical, but not in the 
spiritual, sense. The word of God is " the seed of the king- 
dom " (Luke 8: 11), and a Baptist church is thoroughly 
constructed according to the word of God. 

I admit that the Christians of New Testament times were 
not denominationally distinguished, and that partisan dis- 
tinctions were suppressed in the Corinthian church; but 
after, if not before, the apostolic age closed, these distinc- 
tions began; and, as I have shown before, the Baptists, as 
history declares, were the only people who brought up the 
apostolic churches through the centuries and down to the 
present time, and they cannot be a sect creating division 
among God's people. 

My opponent says: "Any religious institution larger than 
a local congregation and yet smaller than the entire 
church or body of Christ, which includes all of God's chil- 
dren on earth, is an unauthorized body," etc. Let me ask: 
Does the church to which my brother belongs include all 
of God's children on earth? Is not that his meaning? I 
know of no one religious institution on earth that includes 
all of God's children in the world. 

15 i 



226 Why the Baptist Name. 

I assert again that the Baptists, according to their name, 
and in fact, are a death, burial, and resurrection people, 
believing a death, burial, and resurrection gospel, and prac- 
ticing a death, burial, and resurrection baptism; and for 
this reason there are no other people who can properly 
administer baptism in accord with the death, burial, and 
resurrection significance. Some baptize with an unscrip- 
tural design, as my opponent does; others immerse as in- 
different with affusion, or as an expedient; Baptists from 
the beginning have baptized according to the scriptural 
design. My opponent says that the word " Baptist," which 
symbolizes the position of the Baptists as to their sole 
propriety in baptism, is not derived from baptism as I 
maintain, but from the office of the baptizer; but the word 
" Baptist " could never have originated except from the 
baptism which the baptizer administered; and the whole 
significance of baptism is involved in the word " Baptist " 
derived thus from " baptism." The words " Baptist " and 
" baptism " imply each other. 

I said that the communion of the Lord's Supper was 
specifically a collective church act and confined to the 
local organism which administers it. My opponent says 
it is as much an individual act as praying or singing in 
the church or apart from it; and he asserts an indis- 
criminate partaking of it by the individual at home or 
elsewhere under the theory that the church exists at all 
times, whether assembled or not. Paul, however (1 Cor. 
11: 18-22, 33), fixes the assembly, in church capacity, as 
the place and time for the administration of the Lord's 
Supper; and my opponent has not a shred of Scripture 
for his position. The disciples " gathered together " on 
the first day of the week to break bread. (Acts 20: 7.) 
The communion was not only a symbol of our union and 
communion with Christ, but of the unity of the body, or 
church, of Christ (1 Cor. 10: 16, 17); and its purity and 
protection was evidently involved by church discipline as 
expressed in 1 Cor. 5: 6-13, in which, with certain persons, 
we are " not to eat." There were no unorganized churches, 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 227 

however unofficered, implied in Acts 14: 23; Tit. 1: 5. A 
church must organize to create its officers. 

My opponent says that my position relative to salvation 
takes the whole matter out of the realm of faith, where 
God's word places it, and transfers it to the realm of 
" absolute knowledge." He objects to my use of the word 
" know," and seeks to paralyze it by definitions that have 
no application to the word I used, which, in the connec- 
tions employed, means to " see " or " know," in the original, 
oidamen. He admits, however, that, in conversion, which 
takes place in the heart of man and which consists of faith, 
repentance, and baptism, through the gospel, he has " ab- 
solute knowledge;" but in pardon or forgiveness, which 
he says takes place only in the mind of God, we are assured 
only by God's revealing the fact to us. How, he does not 
say, but I suppose he means by the word, which he holds 
declares the fact upon faith, repentance, and baptism, and 
which is the only witness of the Holy Spirit we have on 
the subject. That leaves salvation, as he holds, solely in 
the realm of faith. Well, I agree with him that we may 
know that we are converted through repentance and faith, 
of which we are conscious; and that we have been baptized 
in testimony of the fact and in the symbolization of our 
forgiveness, or cleansing, from sin; but, moreover, I can 
know that I have passed from death unto life because I 
"Zove" (1 John 3: 14), and that I am a child of God be- 
cause the Spirit, not by his word, but by " himself," wit- 
nesses with my spirit (Spirit with spirit) that I am such 
(Rom. 8: 16). Not only so, but, like David, who prayed 
for forgiveness, I can have the " joy " of God's " salvation " 
when that forgiveness is realized (Ps. 51: 12); and we con- 
stantly have it in our experience of grace. I have seen 
hundreds who had that joy when converted; and while their 
feelings were not the ground of their assurance of salva- 
tion, but their faith in Christ, they nevertheless had that 
joy, and had the witness of love and the Holy Spirit that 
they had passed from death unto life and were the children 
of God. 

My friend proceeds to show that the Spirit bears wit- 



228 Why the Baptist Name. 

ness with the Christian only by means of the word, and he 
denies that the Spirit acts directly through the word upon 
saint or sinner. He wants to know what I mean by the 
direct impact of the Spirit — how the Spirit operates 
through the word. I do not know the how. God has es- 
tablished the laws of nature by which all the operations 
of nature take place; but those laws cannot execute them- 
selves, and they are put in force, or executed, only under 
the direct energy and power of God, who is ever present 
and immanent in all the operations of his providence and 
preservation. So the Holy Spirit, who inspired the word, 
operates it upon the minds and hearts of men; and the 
word alone could no more affect men to salvation without 
the energy and power of the Spirit than the laws of nature 
could operate without the immanency and ever-present en- 
ergy of God. Of course the Spirit does not act fatalis- 
tically upon the minds and hearts of free agents as God 
operates through the laws of physical nature; but in the 
depraved and spiritually dead state of human nature the 
Spirit must operate in such a way as to illuminate his truth 
and move upon the mind and heart as to produce convic- 
tion and quicken the soul, through repentance and faith, 
to spiritual life from spiritual death, and thus secure for- 
giveness of sin. 

Throughout the Bible we see instances of the direct op- 
eration of the Spirit upon the souls of men thus " moved;" 
how God spoke to men and through men. The Spirit 
acted directly upon the minds of men in the inspiration of 
the Scriptures, in the gift of tongues, and in speaking 
through the disciples when they were to take no thought 
of what they should speak. He dwells and abides in the 
Christian, and we pray for the exercise of his grace within 
us and his power upon others; and thousands of instances 
of his convicting and converting power in extraordinary 
and remarkable cases are recorded beyond the contradic- 
tion of the most stubborn infidelity. How the Spirit oper- 
ates, by means of his word, is a mystery, but a necessity; 
and what is true of his operation within and through the 
Christian is true of his operation upon and within the sin- 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 229 

ner in order to his transformation and conversion. The 
office of the Spirit, in the absence of Christ, is that of 
present Helper to the Christian (John 16: 7) and of pres- 
ent Convicter to the sinner (John 16: 8) ; and he does his 
work through his revealed word, which is God's spiritual 
law, by writing this law in the mind and on the heart 
in order to conviction and conversion (Heb. 8: 10). The 
word of God is to the spiritual world what his laws of 
nature are to the physical world; and they are both made 
effective by the immanency and ever-present energy of the 
Spirit in their execution. In the spirit world the word 
of God is absolutely essential to the enlightenment, con- 
viction, and quickening of the soul to spiritual life; but 
with all the agency of Spirit-filled preaching and effort to 
rattle and reorganize the dry bones, the Spirit must add 
life. Paul must plant and Apollos water, but neither is he 
that planteth nor he that watereth anything, but God that 
giveth the increase (1 Cor. 3: 6, 7), who makes the seed 
grow. The conversion of a sinner from a state of nature to 
a state of grace is the greatest miracle of revelation. 
" Born from above," " born of God," " renewing of the Holy 
Spirit " — these are terms implying spiritual death and rev- 
olution in the life principle and moral relations of the 
sinner, through divine agency and energy, not predicable 
alone of verbal instrumentality and specifically assigned 
to God through his Spirit. 

My opponent cites me again to the day of Pentecost as 
an illustration of the Spirit's work through the word only. 
Peter preached the word; those who heard the word be- 
lieved the truth and were convicted of sin — pricked in their 
hearts — but, like the convicted jailer, knew not what to 
do; Peter, like Paul, who said, " Believe on the Lord Jesus 
Christ," implying repentance, said, " Repent, and be bap- 
tized in the name of Jesus Christ," implying faith in him 
for the remission of sins precisely as in Acts 10: 43-48. 
In all this marvelous and mighty work of conviction and 
conversion the office of the Holy Spirit (Acts 16: 8) is 
implied; and such work was utterly impossible without 
his convicting and converting power. So the Lord opened 



230 Why the Baptist Name. 

the heart of Lydia to attend unto the things spoken by 
Paul (Acts 16: 14); so God through "-faith" cleansed the 
" hearts " of Cornelius and his house and witnessed the 
fact by the miraculous gift of the Spirit before their bap- 
tism (Acts 10: 44; 15: 7, 9); so of the jailer who, with all 
his house, accepted Christ and was baptized and so " re- 
joiced greatly, having believed in God" (Acts 16: 34). 

The Spirit is not resident in the word, in essence or per- 
son, but only in idea or thought, just as God in law which 
is the transcript of his holiness, and hence only his ex- 
ternal instrument, and not himself, in the conviction and 
conversion of a sinner; but the Spirit is ever present with 
the word, in energy and power, in all the operation of 
grace in regeneration and sanctification. 

My opponent attributes my position regarding the work 
of the Spirit to my fundamental error of " inherited total 
depravity." All sin is " total depravity," inherited or 
actual. Murder, adultery, theft, lying, covetousness, and 
the like are totally depraved acts, and, after their kind, 
can be no worse in the light of God's law; and total de- 
pravity, scripturally described and denned, has its germ 
and source in human nature, in which we are born " by 
nature the children of wrath," and with our consequent 
" trespasses and sins " are pronounced " dead " spiritually. 
(Eph. 2: 5.) Hence the absolute necessity of God's power 
to make us " alive with Christ " through the Holy Spirit 
with his word. I agree with Dr. Jenkyn that without the 
word there can be no conversion; and I agree with him 
further that, with the word, the Holy Spirit is ever present 
and active in the influence and operation of the word. 
Isa. 55: 11 truly says that God's word never returns unto 
him void nor fails to accomplish its purpose, whether it 
proves the savor of life or death; for it is both God's in- 
strument and witness, through the Holy Spirit, to convict 
and convert or condemn. God's word (Jer. 23: 29) is 
"fire" and "hammer;" and, as in Ezek. 37: 2-14, can do 
mighty things instrumentally, but there must be the breath 
of the Spirit of Jehovah to give life to dry bones. Truly 
David speaks (Ps. 119: 50; 107: 20) of the quickening and 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 231 

healing instrumentality of God's word upon the saint as 
upon the sinner; but without the quickening and healing 
Spirit to whom David constantly appealed, the word alone 
would have been without spiritual efficacy. Truly Christ 
said (John 6: 63) that his words were "spirit and life" — 
not his literal flesh and blood, but the doctrines of himself 
as the bread of life through his atonement under these 
figures, being spiritually understood and enlivening and 
quickening his disciples through the Spirit that quick- 
eneth. 

Yes, brother, I walk by faith (2 Cor. 5: 7), and not by 
knowledge, except as the experimental result of faith; and 
I do not mean, by the breathing of the Holy Spirit upon 
me in conversion, that my consciousness of the fact is 
independent of faith. He says that nowhere in the Bible 
is the Spirit or his influence compared to the wind; and 
that Christ's language to Nicodemus, " the wind bloweth 
where it will," refers to man's spirit, which is the subject 
of the new birth! The American Revised Version of the 
New Testament has it in the margin, " the Spirit breath- 
eth " — that is, where he will; and hence, "so is [not 
does'] every one that is born of the Spirit " — that is, who 
has heard the " voice " of the Spirit and upon whom tne 
Spirit " breathetfi" which means life bestowed in regenera- 
tion. My opponent asks if I know absolutely that there 
is a God. I do not, but, upon the testimony of Scripture 
and nature, I believe it so strongly and have reasons so 
probable that it amounts to knowledge confirmed by ex- 
periences of grace which corroborate my faith in God's ex- 
istence^ — all of which creates within me a strong feeling 
on the subject. 

Brother Smith refers to John 6: 44, 65: "No man can 
come to me, except the Father which sent me draw him. . . . 
Except it be given unto him of the Father." The Greek 
helkusee, " draw," and dedomenon, " given," supplement 
each other, and in no sense mean a compulsive dragging, 
or compulsive bestowment of power, in order to come to 
Christ. They mean moral suasion by the word and gift 
of ability by the Holy Spirit, through which the sinner, 



232 Why the Baptist Name. 

convicted, penitent, and believing, is drawn and enabled, 
without which no man can come to Christ. The word 
" can," as negatively construed with " no man," implies 
the sinner's inability to come without the Father's drawing 
and gift of power; and if the sinner is able of himself to 
come simply by hearing and believing the word, there is 
no reason for the words of Christ qualified by " can " and 
" given " at the hands of the Father. To be sure, " every 
one that hath heard from the Father, and hath learned, 
cometh unto me;" but the hearing and learning are "from 
the Father," by means of the word operated by the Father. 
I grant the magnetic power of the cross; but it only so 
becomes by the power of God through his Spirit and word. 
Nothing is so repellant to depraved human nature un- 
touched and unaided by the Holy Spirit. 

My opponent says: "The fact that man, the sinner, has 
the power to resist and reject Christ argues that he has 
the power to accept and obey him." In the very nature 
of his depravity and moral inability to do righteousness, 
the only power the sinner has, unaided, is to reject and 
disobey Christ; and he cannot accept and obey him until 
drawn and enabled by the Father. God will damn him, 
not for his inability, but for hearing and knowing the truth 
and resistance of the Spirit, who comes with drawing and 
enabling power to convict and convert him. Millions at 
the point of conviction have heard and so resisted and per- 
ished. Hence, God warns of resisting, grieving, quenching, 
and blaspheming his Spirit; and it was the curse of the 
Jews, as charged by Stephen, that they did " always resist, 
the Holy Spirit," as their fathers did. (Acts 7: 51.) The 
Spirit with his word moves upon the sinner to bring him 
to Christ; but beyond the point of conviction the Spirit 
seems not to go with the willful and obstinate. Even with 
the Holy Spirit operating his word, millions are not con- 
victed at all, and often violently reject the gospel. Jesus 
truly said that there are few that be saved. (Matt. 20: 
22; 22: 14; Luke 13: 23, with Matt. 7: 13.) 

My friend criticizes my reference to Alexander Camp- 
bell's position, "All the converting power of the Holy 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 233 

Spirit is exhibited in the divine record;" and asks if I 
have brought forward one passage to disprove it. Verily, 
I think I have. He refers to Campbell's antecedents as 
Presbyterian and Baptist, and to his repudiation of the 
direct work of the Spirit in conversion and of the idea of 
an " experience of grace," " after," my opponent says, 
" learning the way of the Lord more perfectly!" Alas! He 
learned the way of the Lord more imperfectly, and no great 
man has ever done the religion of Christ more harm. He 
is the modern echo of Pelagianism and Romanism com- 
bined, in some respects modified; but, nevertheless, a com 
bination incongruous in itself and full of conflicting and 
deadly errors. 

My opponent has repeatedly charged me with my " feel- 
ings " as the only basis of my assurance of Christ's reli- 
gion, notwithstanding my repeated denials. The conscious- 
ness of my faith in Christ for salvation is the basis of my 
assurance that I am saved. I know that I have repented 
and believed in Christ in order to be saved, and that I have 
obeyed in baptism which symbolically sets forth the fact; 
and I am clinging to Christ as my Savior and trying to 
serve him in proof of the fact that I have believed, and so 
been saved by grace. More than this, I have the evidence 
that I have passed from death unto life because I love the 
brethren (1 John 3: 14), and because the Spirit himself 
witnesses with my spirit that I am a child of God (Rom. 
8: 16). I also feel the joy of God's salvation, as David 
did, in evidence of God's pardon. (Ps. 51: 2.) But all these 
experiences vary, and at times seem not to be conscious; 
but one thing I always go back to and upon which I stand 
for hope eternal, and that is that I believed in Christ, and 
still believe in him, for salvation, feelings or no feelings. 



234 Why the Baptist Name. 



VII. 

WHEN AND WHERE DID BAPTISTS TAKE 
THEIR NAME?" 



Mr. Smith's First Review. 

Brother Lofton anticipates a question thus: "It may ~be 
asked, When and where did Baptists take their name? " 
This is altogether immaterial, since it has been most clearly 
shown that they did not get this denominational name from 
the word of God. The New Testament Scriptures condemn 
in the most positive terms religious denominations, and he- 
cause of this fact do not furnish names for such institu- 
tions. (See 1 Cor. 1: 10-13.) That book reveals only the 
one body (Eph. 4: 4), and it is distinctly designated as the 
body or church of Christ (Col. 1: 24). Hence the proper 
question is: Are Baptist churches modeled after the pattern 
of New Testament churches? It matters not when, where, 
how, nor by whom the " Baptist " Church originated, if the 
Doctor cannot show it to be the same in faith, doctrine, 
name, and polity as the church revealed in the New Testa- 
ment. Brother Lofton assumes that all religionists not 
identified with the Roman Catholic hierarchy who prac- 
ticed immersion, no matter under what name they were 
known, mwst have been the same as " Baptists " of this age. 
He further assumes that the " woman in the wilderness " 
of whom John speaks in Revelation represented a divine 
institution, and that this, too, was the Baptist Church! 
Religious history shows that denominational names follow 
the birth of the denominations themselves, and in harmony 
with this fact the Baptist denomination was born not earlier 
than the sixteenth century. In his book, "A Review of the 
Question," Dr. Lofton quotes approvingly from "A Repos- 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 235 

itory of Divers Historical Matters relating to English Anti- 
pedobaptists " the following: "An account of the meth- 
ods taken by the Baptists to obtain a proper administrator 
of baptism by immersion, when that practice had been so 
long disused that there was no one who had been so bap- 
tized to be found. With the opinion of Henry Lawrence, 
Lord President, on the case." (Appendix, page 232.) 
Again, in his book, " English Baptist Reformation," page 
39, Brother Lofton says: "Joshua led Israel over Jordan; 
and so Helwys led the first English Anabaptist church — 
the mother of the General Baptists — to London and estab- 
lished it there, in 1611, and thus completed the first great 
step in the Baptist reformation." I have asserted that the 
Baptist Church came into existence not earlier than the six- 
teenth century, and Dr. Lofton is my chief witness in the 
case. 

The Doctor says that they did not take " the general de- 
nominational name of Baptist as we now have it" until 
the seventeenth century. For argument's sake, it might be 
granted that Dr. Lofton could trace his denomination 
through all of the fogs and mists of religious apostasy back 
to the very daps of the apostles, and yet it would fail to be 
the church which Jesus Christ said: "Upon this rock I 
will build." (Matt. 16: 18.) It is a well-known fact to all 
Bible students that the apostasy from apostolic teaching and 
practice began in the days of Paul himself. (See 2 Thess. 
2: 1-10; Acts 20: 28-30.) Hence no church can establish 
the claim to be scriptural that does not teach and practice 
what the apostles taught and practiced, no matter how far 
back they may trace the line. Perhaps a word from the 
Doctor himself upon this point will not be out of place. 
A few years ago Dr. Whitsitt, once president of the Baptist 
Theological Seminary, Louisville, Ky., made, perhaps, a more 
extensive research into Baptist history than all his pred- 
ecessors, and discovered the fact that the " chain of apos- 
tolic succession " so long claimed by the Baptists came sud- 
denly and radically to an end in England. Lo and behold, 
he found the " Baptists " practicing affusion instead of im- 
mersion! For this discovery thousands of Baptists came 



236 Why the Baptist Name. 

down upon the head of Dr. Whitsitt like " a thousand brick." 
Dr. Lofton came to his rescue and wrote a book, entitled 
"A Review of the Question," in the Preface to which he says : 
" One great object of this work is to help relieve the Bap- 
tists of the illusive and useless error of an historical fic- 
tion — the traditional vagary of baptismal or church succes- 
sion, after the manner of the Romanists and the Episco- 
palians." The Introduction to his book is written by W. 
Pope Yeaman, S. T. D., who says: "A church organized 
to-day on the basis of New Testament teaching would be a 
New Testament church if none other like it had existed 
since the first apostolic church." To this I give a most 
solemn "Amen," for it reduces the whole question to its 
proper basis, from which scriptural organization must be 
determined. In Chapter I. of his book the Doctor says: 
" I once firmly believed that organic and unbroken Baptist 
church succession was susceptible of historic proof; but, 
for some years past, my mind has gradually undergone 
change, in view of the new developments originating in 
the more accurate and historic method of dealing with the 
subject of Baptist history." ("A Review of the Question," 
page 9.) Thus it may be clearly seen that Dr. Lofton 
teaches one thing with reference to Baptist history in his 
book and quite another in his tract. This is not to be 
wondered at, for error is always inconsistent with, and con- 
tradictory to, itself. 

Brother Lofton says: "Baptist history would have been 
impossible without the Baptist name." This granted, what 
then? Would not the word of God and the divinely in- 
spired history of the church Christ established remained 
had the " Baptist " denomination never existed at all? 
The author of the Introduction to Brother Lofton's book 
has said, with the Doctor's hearty approval: "A church 
organized to-day on the basis of New Testament teaching- 
would be a New Testament church if none other like it had 
existed since the first apostolic church." This is abso- 
lutely true, and the principle involved renders "Baptist 
history" and all other uninspired church history worth- 
less in so far as the restoration of congregations patterned 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 237 

after those of the New Testament is concerned. The vital 
principle involved lies in the means for such a restoration — 
viz., the seed of the kingdom, which is the word of God. 
(Luke 8: 11.) Be it further noted that "a church organ- 
ized on the basis of New Testament teaching" would not 
be a "Baptist" church, but a church of Christ. (See Rom. 
16: 16.) Now this fact annihilates the Baptist dogma of 
" a proper administrator of baptism or no admission to the 
Lord's Supper." What truth essential to salvation is there 
in " Baptist history " that is not revealed in the New Testa- 
ment? And since, according to Dr. Lofton's own admission 
that " a church organized to-day on the basis of New Testa- 
ment teaching would be a New Testament church if none 
other like it had existed since the first apostolic church," 
why waste time in tracing the history of the " Baptist " or 
any other denomination? 

Our brother is great on " assumption," but this is a mat- 
ter of too much importance to be settled by such arbitrary 
methods. Proof, Bible proof, is demanded, and not mere 
assumptions based upon nothing more substantial than a 
strained imagination. What the Doctor needs is not to 
show a religious ancestry connecting his church with 
Novations, Donatists, Paulicians, and Albigenses, nor yet 
with the " woman in the wilderness," but with the teaching 
and practice of the apostles. His recapitulation of what 
he terms " Baptist peculiarities " would be exceedingly 
amusing if the subject were not so serious. There is not 
a single one of them distinctively peculiar to the M Baptist " 
Church. With the exception of immersion, all of them are 
held by the majority of denominations. Strictly speaking, 
Baptists do not maintain local church independence. They 
have their " associations " composed of a number of 
churches in a given territory, which exercise at least some 
control over the congregations, as the following shows: 

Associations adopt " confessions of faith," which embrace 
the leading doctrines taught in the Bible. When a new 
church applies for membership, the messengers bearing the 
letter of application also present the articles of faith which 
the church has adopted. This " church covenant," as it is 
commonly called, is submitted to a special committee of 



238 Why the Baptist Name. 

wise brethren, who examine the articles of faith; and if 
this committee report them sound to the association, the 
church is admitted by vote. Should a church, belonging to 
the association, become unsound in faith or practice, the 
association simply withdraws fellowship from that church, 
and will not thereafter receive her messengers until the evil 
is corrected. (" Church Members' Guide for Baptist Church- 
es," pages 141, 142.) 

Prom this it seems that the " association " sits in judg- 
ment on the faith and practice of the local church. And as 
to local church government, they are clearly unscriptural. 
The New Testament order provides for a plurality of elders 
or bishops in each local church (see Acts 20: 28; Phil. 1: 
1; Acts 14: 23), but this the Baptists do not have. 

The Doctor tells us that " the Baptist name is denomi- 
national, . . . but it is not sectarian." This is a most 
wonderful statement, coming, as it does, from a man of 
Brother Lofton's intelligence. " Denominational " and 
" sectarian " in a religious sense are synonymous terms, 
and the very fact that Dr. Lofton will not claim that the 
Baptist Church contains all of the children of God on earth 
is proof positive that it is a sectarian institution. Now, 
in order to test this matter, I will ask him this question: 
Are not all of God's children on earth members of the 
body of Christ? To this he will say, "Yes." Once more: 
Are all of God's children on earth members of the Baptist 
Church? To this he will say, " No." Then, it matters not 
by what name he designates the Baptist Church, it is of 
necessity a sectarian name because it points out a sect. 

One of the cardinal doctrines of the Baptist Church, as 
well as of many others, is that a sinner is justified or saved 
from past sins by faith alone; but Jesus Christ, the Savior 
of men, squarely contradicts this theory. He says : " He 
that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.'" (Mark 16: 
16.) One of the most eminent Baptists that was ever asso- 
ciated with the branch of the Baptist Church to which Dr. 
Lofton belongs said with reference to the great commis- 
sion: "We shall hardly dare to tamper with his royal 
word and make it run, 'He that believeth and is saved shall 
be baptized.' " (J. W. Willmarth, " Baptism and Remis- 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 239 

sion," in Baptist Quarterly, July, 1877, page 308.) This is 
true loyalty to the word of God; but Dr. Lofton, as well 
as thousands of others, has dared to tamper with his royal 
word at this very point, and in so doing has mutilated the 
Constitution of the church of God which has been sealed 
with the blood of his Son. 

I close this review with the statement that every argu- 
ment herein presented against the denominational name 
" Baptist " applies with equal force to all denominational 
or sectarian names. The New Testament knows nothing 
of Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Episco- 
palians, Campbellites, or any other denomination. It re- 
veals but one church, and all of God's children in the wide 
world are members of that body. By faith in the divine 
Sonship of Christ they are baptized into the one body (1 
Cor. 12: 13) and into his name, which they should rejoice 
to wear. May the Lord help Brother Lofton and all of 
us to see and appreciate the truth as it is in Christ Jesus 
is my earnest and sincere prayer. 



Dr. Lofton's First Reply. 

Brother Smith, in reply to my question, " When and 
where did Baptists take their name?" says: "This is al- 
together immaterial, since it has been most clearly shown 
that they did not get this denominational name from the 
word of God." He refers again to 1 Cor. 1: 10-13, con- 
demning the divisions of the Corinthian church, and cites 
Eph. 4 : 4 to show that the church was " one body " or 
" church of Christ." The proper question, he says, is: "Are 
Baptist churches modeled after the pattern of the New 
Testament churches? " He claims it as my assumption 
only that the early anti-Catholic religionists, "the woman 
in the wilderness," by whatever name known and prac- 
ticing immersion, must have been the same as Baptists of 
this age. " Denominational names," he says, " follow the 
birth of the denominations themselves;" and so he claims 



240 Why the Baptist Name. 

that the Baptist denomination was horn not earlier than 
the sixteenth century. He quotes my hooks, "A Review of 
the Question " and my " English Baptist Reformation," 
with reference to the organization of the " Particular " and 
" General Baptists," 1633 and 1611 A.D., as the beginning 
of the Baptist denomination, according to my own his- 
torical conclusion. 

I have clearly shown that the word " Baptist " is a 
scriptural name and applicable to the fundamental princi- 
ple and practice of the gospel growing out of repentance 
and faith in order to the remission of sins and symbolized 
by the great ordinance of baptism from which the word 
"Baptist" originates; and I have shown that the people 
who have followed, at all times and in every country, this 
order of the gospel — believers' baptism as opposed to in- 
fant baptism and to baptismal remission and regeneration 
— are appropriately called " Baptists " in contradistinction 
from other people who practice or teach to the contrary. 
The name was given to John, who originated the principle 
and practice; and those who have followed him against 
the Christian world are necessarily distinguished by that 
title. The world itself gives us the name "Baptist;" and 
we could not, if we would, get rid of it. The name is not 
contrary to the Word of God; and the expression, " Baptist 
Church," is as easily found in the New Testament as that 
of " Christian church." Really the churches of the gospel 
have no name, in particular, beyond the word " church " 
or " churches," usually designated by the locality in which 
they were established; and when, rarely, they are men- 
tioned as the " church of God " or " churches of Christ," 
it implies more the ownership of God and his Christ than 
a name of distinction. All denominations claim their 
churches as the churches of God or of Christ; and but for 
unscriptural differences " churches " might have still been 
called " churches," according to their locality, and the name 
" Baptist " might have been unnecessary as a denomina- 
tional distinction. 

I claim that Baptist churches are " modeled after the 
pattern of the New Testament churches;" and I claim that, 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 241 

substantially, though not always regularly, those early anti- 
Catholic people, and, latterly, anti-Protestant people, were 
in accord with the great fundamental principles and prac- 
tices of the Baptist denomination as it exists to-day. Re- 
pentance and faith as the ground of salvation; believers' 
baptism as the token of spiritual birth and entrance into 
the body of Christ; the independency of the churches and 
religious liberty to worship God according to conscience; 
the Bible as the only rule of faith and practice; the demo- 
cratic organism and government of the churches, with their 
bishops and deacons — all this and more were the princi- 
ples and practices for which they stood and suffered and 
died in every age and country of Christendom. They were 
called all sorts of names and stigmatized by all sorts of 
caricatures, but they were generally designated as "Anabap- 
tists " and latterly crystallized under the general name of 
" Baptists " by way of distinction from all other people 
and by force of their principles and practices, though occa- 
sionally so named by different writers of history. 

In my books which my opponent quotes I referred to 
the organization of the General and Particular Baptists of 
England (1611-1633 A.D.) ; but there were Anabaptists in 
England during the age of Wycliffe and the Lollards and 
down to the reign of Elizabeth; and the Christians of the 
first three centuries, in England, are claimed as Baptists 
by some of the strongest Baptist authorities. At the time 
of the organization of the General and Particular Baptists 
of England (1611-1633 A.D.), there were the Dutch Bap- 
tists, the Polish, and other Anabaptists on the Continent; 
and these had had a succession from the sixteenth century 
Anabaptists, who could trace an evangelical succession, ac- 
cording to the best authorities, to the days of the apostles 
themselves. (Dermont, Ypeig, Hosius, and others.) 

My opponent claims that though I should trace the 
Baptist denomination and its name back " through all the 
fogs and mists of religious apostasy" to the very days of 
the apostles, yet it would fail to be the church of which 
Christ spoke when he said: "Upon this rock I will build," 
etc. (Matt. 16: 18.) And he proceeds to argue that, since 
16 



242 Why the Baptist Name. 

apostasy began in the churches in the days of Paul him- 
self (2 Thess. 2: 1-10; Acts 20: 28-30), no church can claim 
to be scriptural that does not teach and practice what the 
apostles taught and practiced. He quotes Dr. Whitsett, my 
" Review of the Question," and Dr. Yeaman, who wrote the 
Introduction to my book, to show that the doctrine of 
" apostolic succession," according to our position, was a 
fiction; that Baptists could not claim, in the light of their 
English history, a baptismal church succession from the 
apostles; and that while I gave up the fiction in my book, 
I take the contrary position in my tract. 

Brother Smith does not understand me. I do not hold to 
a link succession of regularly organized and orderly Bap- 
tist churches from the apostles, at all times, till now; but 
I do hold with the seventeenth century Baptist writers 
("English Baptist Reformation," pages 183, 191, 255) that 
there has oeen an evangelical succession of Baptist people 
from the days of the apostles; and that, however often 
broken in organic and baptismal succession, they have per- 
sisted through the centuries, and at the time of the English 
Baptist Reformation succeeded in restoring gospel order 
and their name as they now have it. Before this, they 
were not always regular Baptists, and were sometimes ir- 
regular and broken up by persecution and opposition; but, 
as Dr. Newman says: " They were thoroughly imbued with 
Baptist principles." Christ built his church upon the rock 
of Peter's faith and confession that Jesus was the Son of 
God, the Messiah — upon the apostles and prophets as the 
foundation of which he was the chief corner stone, upon 
the principles and practices of the gospel — and upon this 
rock Baptists have ever stood spiritually and have built 
organically; and while the gates of Hades have sought, 
through the centuries, to destroy them, and have sometimes 
disorganized and scattered them, these gates have never 
prevailed and never will prevail. Destroy all the Baptists 
of the world to-day, and given Christ, the Word, and the 
Holy Spirit, there will be Baptists to-morrow and every- 
where, as in Russia and other countries now filling up with 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 243 

Baptists wherever they have the Bible, and in spite of per- 
secution. 

To my proposition, " Baptist history would have been 
impossible without the Baptist name," my opponent says 
"granted;" but he asks: "Would not the word of God 
and the divinely inspired history of the church established 
remained, had the Baptist denomination never existed at 
all? " I think not. With the early establishment of the 
Roman Catholic hierarchy, and with the later establish- 
ment of the Protestant hierarchies, I know of no people 
and their history that conform to the New Testament pat- 
tern which have survived through the Christian centuries, 
except the Baptists; and if their principles and practices 
are according to the New Testament pattern, as we hold, 
then our history is as divinely inspired as our principles 
and practices; and we have existed and persisted as the 
churches of Christ, though distinguished from others by 
the Baptist name, without which our history would have 
been impossible. 

My opponent seems to think that my proposition, as laid 
down in my book, "A church organized to-day on the basis 
of New Testament teaching would be a New Testament 
church, if none other like it had existed since the first 
apostolic church," renders Baptist history " worthless " in 
so far as the restoration of congregations patterned after 
those of the New Testament is concerned; but this is the 
history of the Baptists themselves since the great apos- 
tasy following the days of the apostles. I agree with my 
brother that the vital principles involved in the restora- 
tion and perpetuation of the churches " is the seed of the 
kingdom, which is the word of God" (Luke 8: 11); but, 
contrary to his opinion, Baptist history demonstrates that 
our churches are organized on the basis of New Testament 
teaching, and that, therefore, a Baptist church is " a church 
of Christ;" and this fact is the ground for the Baptist posi- 
tion and practice which demand that a " proper admin- 
istrator of baptism " — one who is ordained and authorized 
by a scriptural church to administer the ordinance — is es- 



244 Why the Baptist Name. 

sential to regular baptism, which is a prerequisite to church 
membership and communion in a Baptist body. 

Brother Smith asks: "What truth essential to salva- 
tion is there in Baptist history that is not revealed in the 
New Testament?" I answer: "None." But his question, 
" Since a church organized to-day on the basis of New 
Testament teaching would be a New Testament church, if 
none other had existed since the first apostolic church, 
why waste time in tracing Baptist history? " is wholly im- 
pertinent, since Baptist history is the glory of the principle 
involved in his statement, and since Baptist history is the 
glory of God's people who have witnessed for Christ on 
this principle since the days of the apostles. Baptists and 
Baptist history have been the spontaneous and constant 
result of gospel " seed," since the days of the apostles, 
through perpetual reproduction. 

My opponent says that my recapitulation, in my tract, 
of Baptist peculiarities does not include one, except 
immersion, not peculiar to the "majority of denomina- 
tions." That is largely true at the present time; but there 
was a time when Baptists alone held these peculiarities, 
and it is largely true that through Baptist teaching, per- 
sistence, suffering, and martyrdom these peculiarities were 
wrought into the creed and life of these denominations. 
The glory of Baptist history is the triumph of these pecul- 
iarities in the world. I could quote largely from the best 
writers of other denominations who concede this fact to 
the honor of the Baptist denomination, and who have testi- 
fied profoundly of the value of Baptist history and achieve- 
ment to this world. 

My opponent says: " Strictly speaking, Baptists do not 
maintain local church independence." He cites a passage 
from " Church Members' Guide for Baptist Churches," 
pages 141, 142, from which he infers that our associational 
organizations " exercise at least some control over the con- 
gregations." He was never more mistaken. Associations 
and conventions are purely voluntary bodies composed of 
messengers from the churches who meet and organize, by 
way of cooperation, for the promotion of world-wide mis- 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 245 

sions, education, benevolence, and the like, beyond the ca- 
pacity of the individual church; and while the churches 
may or may not cooperate with these general bodies, as 
they see proper, these general bodies exercise no doctrinal 
or disciplinary power over these churches at all. They 
may give advice at the request of a church; they may see 
fit to disfellowship a church out of harmony with Baptist 
principle and practice, so far as they are concerned or re- 
lated, but their disfellowship does not unmake the church 
nor affect its denominational standing, except to the extent 
of their moral influence; and in this particular these gen- 
eral bodies act upon the principle that they have the right 
to choose the company they keep. A Baptist church mor- 
ally or doctrinally wrong disfellowships itself as related to 
all other Baptist churches or bodies. 

Brother Smith cites me to the fact (Acts 20: 28; Phil. 
1: 1; Acts 14: 23) that Baptist churches are not organ- 
ized with a plurality of elders or bishops in each local 
church, and that we are clearly unscriptural as to local 
church government. There is no evidence that the num- 
ber of elders in the New Testament churches was uniform, 
or that the plurality existed except on account of the size 
of the church, which then comprised the membership of 
the whole community where located, as at Jerusalem, Cor- 
inth, Antioch, and other places. The New Testament ex- 
ample evidently admits a plurality of elders according to 
the need of a church, but it does not imply the necessity 
where the need does not exist, nor does it imply coordinate 
authority of the eldership with the church. It is indicated, 
in some instances, that while the deacons were plural, the 
pastor was one in number. Paul's qualifications of the 
; ' bishop" and "the deacons" (1 Tim. 3: 2, 8, 10, 12; Tit. 
1: 7) so speak of the bishop in the singular and of the 
deacons in the plural. " The angel of the church " (Rev. 
2: 1, 8, 12, 18; 3: 1, 7, 14) seems to have been the pastor of 
the church. Many Baptist churches have had a plurality 
of both elders and deacons; and the Central Baptist Church 
of this city has two elders or pastors, and so of other Bap- 
tist churches with two or more. I think my opponent can- 



246 Why the Baptist Name. 

not be dogmatic on the subject beyond the necessity of the 
church according to the size of its membership; and the 
New Testament elders, evidently, all preached and labored 
in the work of the churches, having spiritual oversight of 
the body, without disciplinary lordship. 

Brother Smith seems startled at the statement of my 
tract which says: "The Baptist name is denominational 
by force of differentiation from all others, but it is not sec- 
tarian." I give as the reason, which he does not notice, that 
the name " is symbolical of a whole truth theology which 
comprehends the death, burial, and resurrection signifi- 
cance of salvation by grace through faith alone and certi- 
fied by baptism." He says that " denominational " and 
" sectarian " in a religious sense are " synonymous terms;" 
but not in the case of Baptists, who are necessarily so desig- 
nated by the unscriptural divisions of the Christian world 
in conflict with a whole gospel which Baptists represent 
and which is signified by their baptism and their name. 
He says that because I do not claim that the Baptist 
churches contain all the children of God on earth is " proof 
positive that they are a sectarian institution;" but because 
many of the children of God belong to unscriptural church 
organisms is no argument that the Baptists are not scrip- 
turally organized and constitute the churches of Christ ac- 
cording to the New Testament. My opponent seeks by a 
question to put me in a false attitude: "Are not all of 
God's children on earth members of the body of Christ? " 
Yes, they are members of his great spiritual body irre- 
spective of all external organisms. Then he asks again: 
"Are all God's children on earth members of the Baptist 
Church? " Of course not. " Then," says my opponent, " it 
matters not by what name he [Dr. Lofton] designates the 
Baptist Church, it is of necessity sectarian because it points 
out a sect." Not if the Baptist churches are scriptural in 
doctrine and practice and the other denominations are not. 
If Baptists are right, they are not a sect, though necessarily 
denominationalized by differentiation with those who are 
not right and are therefore sects. 

Finally, my opponent says: "One of the cardinal doc- 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 247 

trines of the Baptist Church, as well as of many others, is 
that a sinner is justified or saved from past sins by faith 
alone; but Jesus Christ, the Savior of men, squarely con- 
tradicts this theory. He says: 'He that believeth and is 
baptized shall be saved.'" (Mark 16: 16.) He then cites 
Dr. Willmarth (Baptist) in defense, who says of this text: 
" We shall hardly dare to tamper with his royal word and 
make it run, ' He that believeth and is saved shall be bap- 
tized.' " This is precisely the ritual and symbolic meaning 
of the text, as I have shown under other heads of this dis- 
cussion; and I will now reply to Brother Willmarth with 
other quotations from Jesus and his word: "Verily, verily 
I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth 
on him that sent me, hath eternal life, and cometh not 
into judgment, but hath passed out of death into life." 
(John 5: 24.) Afterwards Jesus put this great text into 
practice when he said to one of the worst sinners, penitent 
and believing: " Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace." 
(Luke 7: 50.) After the day of Pentecost, and when the 
kingdom was opened to the Gentiles, Peter said to Cornelius 
and his house: " To him bear all the prophets witness, that 
through his name every one that believeth on him shall re- 
ceive remission of sins" (Acts 10: 43); and while Peter 
spoke these very " words " whereby Cornelius and his house 
should be "saved" (Acts 11: 14), the Holy Spirit fell on 
all them that heard the word, and they spoke with tongues 
and magnified God and were afterwards baptized — after 
they were saved and their sins remitted, according to their 
Holy Spirit baptism and their own spiritual testimony and 
demonstration. If this is not proof positive that " he that 
believeth and is saved shall be baptized," according to the 
latest and clearest apostolic enactment on the law of bap- 
tism, then we have nothing to guide us on the subject, ex- 
cept Willmarth. This is Baptist doctrine and practice and 
Baptist history for two thousand years, since the days of 
John the Baptist. Of course, "he that believeth and is 
baptized [baptized to symbolize the fact of his salvation] 
shall be saved;" but the baptism is not a condition of sal- 
vation, but only the accompanying sign of salvation. 



248 Why the Baptist Name. 

Baptism is the great symbol or token of salvation. Some- 
times, according to the usage of Scripture language, the 
sign is put for the thing signified; but the great mass of 
scriptures on the subject literally and emphatically put 
salvation by grace at justification by faith alone before 
baptism, or any other act of physical obedience, which 
must spring from the regenerate heart to be spiritual and 
acceptable to God. Faith is the work of God in the heart 
and the only medium through which the Spirit, with the 
Word, can operate upon the soul in order to salvation; and 
confession, baptism, and good works are the successive fruit 
and evidence of saving faith by which we signify, demon- 
strate, or work out the salvation which God worketh with- 
in us both to will and to do, of his own good will or 
pleasure. The tree of faith (saving faith) is one thing; 
the fruit that grows on the tree, the sign and proof thereof. 



Mr. Smith's Second Review. 

My opponent insists with much emphasis that my reli- 
gion is a " cold " and " mechanical " affair, but how he 
made such a discovery is somewhat problematical, in view 
of the fact that the miraculous gift of " discerning spirits " 
(1 Cor. 12: 10) belonged exclusively to the days of miracles. 
" For who among men knoweth the things [mind or heart] 
of a man, save the spirit of the man, which is in him?" (1 
Cor. 2: 11.) Here it is stated that no man knows the heart 
of another, and yet in the face of this inspired declaration 
my brother arrogates to himself a spiritual jurisdiction and 
renders the following verdict — viz.: The "Campbellites" 
are a " self-regenerated " people, whose religion is nothing 
more than a " cold, mechanical, and intellectual affair." 
It is eminently proper to ask Brother Lofton: Who made 
you a judge of such a weighty matter? But since it is an 
evident fact that he cannot "discern spirits" or read 
hearts, by what method did he arrive at the conclusion that 
the " Campbellites," as he calls them, have only a " cold and 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 249 

mechanical " religion? Judged by the standard of morality, 
purity, devotion, benevolence, and Christian living in gen- 
eral, they will suffer not a whit in comparison with Bap- 
tists, Methodists, Presbyterians, or any other Protestant 
body. The spirit within me knows that I believe in the 
Savior of men, that I love him, that all of my desires are 
to serve, honor, and glorify him among men; and if this is 
a " cold and mechanical " religion, then I pray God that I 
may have more and more of it. 

The trouble with my good Brother Lofton is that every 
time he reads where the Holy Spirit is said to do anything 
in the salvation of man that it must of necessity be done 
" directly " or " mysteriously." He has the Holy Spirit 
" breathing upon the soul like the wind!" The Holy Spirit 
is a divine person, and is the third person in the Godhead 
(Col. 2: 9), whose breathings, in so far as the revelation 
of God to man is concerned, are all embodied in words ad- 
dressed to man's comprehension. Hence we can only know 
the Holy Spirit and what he does in the same way that we 
know God and Christ and what they do — viz., through the 
written or revealed words of the Spirit. 

I have shown not only from the Holy Scriptures, but 
also from the highest authority in the Baptist Church, that 
Dr. Lofton did not get his denominational name from the 
word of God; hence it matters not whence it came, it is 
unscriptural and sectarian. Moreover, it is not only used 
to designate local churches, but is applied to a religious 
body whose tabulated membership is published to the 
world, which does not embrace the entire body of Christ 
on earth; hence, if the name "Baptist" were scriptural, 
Dr. Lofton is making an unscriptural use of it in applying 
it to the body of " Baptists." I said " Baptist " churches 
were not modeled after the churches revealed in the New 
Testament, and Dr. Lofton calls in question this statement, 
but submits no reliable testimony to sustain his denial. 
He furthermore claims that the doctrine and practice of 
the " Baptist " Church, as we now have it, was handed 
down from the very days of John the Baptist, passing 
through certain people who were known by different names 



250 Why the Baptist Name. 

in different ages. Now, if this be true, does it not seem 
exceedingly strange that a name which he says was derived 
from baptism, and which alone stands for and symbolizes 
" a death, burial, and resurrection gospel," should have 
been lost for nearly seventeen hundred years, when " bap- 
tism," the very thing which he says suggests the name 
" Baptist," was practiced continually and uninterruptedly 
through all those years! 

It will be remembered that he included the religious peo- 
ple known in church history as "Paulicians" among his 
religious ancestors; and when it is shown that the "Pauli- 
cians " did not hold to and practice the doctrine of the 
" Baptists," what becomes of his contention? Well, here 
is what a great Baptist Church historian says of the Pauli- 
cians: "There is no mention in all the accounts of this 
people of any clergy among them." And: "They called 
themselves Christians." (Benedict's "History of the Bap- 
tists," page 13.) Does that sound like Baptist doctrine? 
The Baptist Church not only has the " clergy," but no one 
save an ordained " clergyman " can administer baptism and 
the Lord's Supper in the Doctor's church! Benedict fur- 
ther says of the Paulicians: 

They had not any ecclesiastical governments administered 
by bishops, priests, or deacons; they had no sacred order of 
men distinguished from the rest of the assembly. They had 
certain teachers whom they called companions in the jour- 
ney of life; among these there reigned a perfect equality, 
and they had no peculiar rights, privileges, nor any external 
mark of dignity to distinguish them from the people. (Ben- 
edict's "History of the Baptist," page 13.) 

How does all of this compare with the " clergy," " lay " 
members, and " Reverend D.D.'s " of the " Baptist " 
Church, added to the "Association of Pastors?" The 
" Paterines," so named from the purity of life demanded 
by the religious body having this name, are also among the 
Doctor's religious kinspeople; and, according to Benedict's 
history, they taught that "faith without works could not 
save a man" (see page 16), but this doctrine my friend 
repudiates with all of his soul. Dr. Lofton claims that 
" Baptists " alone can properly administer the ordinances 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 251 

of baptism and the Lord's Supper, upon the ground that 
they alone have the true baptism. Well, now, where did 
the Baptist denomination get its baptism? Have they a 
baptism handed down from one baptized person or a church 
of baptized persons from the days of John the Baptist or 
even the days of the apostles? The Doctor himself says 
they have not such a baptism, for in his " English Baptist 
Reformation" (page 32), he quotes approvingly the follow- 
ing relative to one who was a pioneer in " restoring " the 
"Baptist" Church: 

Smyth squarely assumes that there had never been a true 
church having the true ministry and baptism in England. 
. . . And, as we have seen, Smyth considered that there 
was neither gospel baptism nor church in the world, not 
even with the Mennonites, else he had adopted their bap- 
tism. 

How, then, in restoring the " Baptist " Church, as the 
Doctor claims was done, did Smyth restore baptism? Dr. 
Lofton says that Smyth did it. Hear him: " Smyth evolved 
the ideal of a Baptist Church in the light of the Scriptures 
contrasted with the errors both of the pedobaptists and 
Mennonites." Our friend says that Smyth restored the 
true baptism by baptizing himself, for it is an indisputable 
fact that that was the way Smyth was baptized, and he 
baptized Helwys, who established the first Baptist church 
in England. 

Now, in the light of these admitted facts, what right has 
the " Baptist " Church to lay claim to a true baptism any 
more than any other religious body? The claim is ridicu- 
lously absurd, and the Doctor's own clearly expressed ad- 
missions forever explode his pretense that the " Baptist " 
Church alone can administer a true baptism as a pre- 
requisite to communion. He says: 

Really the churches of the gospel have no name, in par- 
ticular, beyond the word " church " or " churches," usually 
designated by the locality in which they were established; 
and when, rarely, they are mentioned as the " church of 
God " or " churches of Christ," it implies more the owner- 
ship of God and his Christ than a name of distinction. 



252 Why the Baptist Name. 

If the " churches of the gospel have no name in partic- 
ular," then why does my friend insist so rigidly upon the 
particular name " Baptist? " Since he can read nowhere 
in God's Word that the name " Baptist " in a particular or 
any other sense was ever applied to a " gospel church," 
how does he know that God is pleased with his course in 
this matter? 

Again, inasmuch as the Holy Spirit, in describing the 
divine institution of the New Testament with reference to 
'* ownership " and " distinction," employed certain words 
with which to do it, why should Dr. Lofton not employ the 
same words, if "Baptist" churches are gospel churches? 
What has the divided condition of the religious world to 
do with the matter if, as he claims, " Baptist " churches 
are modeled after the pattern of New Testament churches? 
In fact, if " Baptist " churches are modeled after the gospel 
or New Testament churches, Dr. Lofton is absolutely vio- 
lating the word of God in not using the very words the 
Holy Spirit used in speaking of the churches, no matter in 
what sense it was done. " If any man speaketh, speaking 
as it were oracles of God." (1 Pet. 4: 11.) Again: "Hold 
the pattern of sound words which thou hast heard from 
me." (2 Tim. 1: 13.) Thus the children of God are ex- 
horted not only to hold fast to sound words, hut also to the 
very pattern of the words of the Spirit, but my friend 
will not do this. 

Suppose, as the Doctor asserts, that all denominations do 
claim their churches as the churches of God or of Christ? 
He does not believe they are such, and why, then, upon the 
ground of a claim he believes is false, does he adopt a 
denominational name for what he says are churches of 
God or of Christ? He can never, to the satisfaction of any 
candid reader, extricate himself from the embarrassing sit- 
uation in which he is placed, without a clear repudiation of 
his denominational name. 

I am surprised to see a man of Brother Lofton's learning 
contending that " religious liberty " consists in " worship- 
ing God according to conscience!" Does he not know that 
conscience is not a guide in worshiping God? A man's con- 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 253 

science will approve his doing what he believes is right 
in religion, but can never tell him what is right. The 
word of God alone can do that, and here is where the 
Doctor makes the fatal mistake of relying on his feelings 
as an evidence of pardon. Such doctrine is no part of 
the model of New Testament churches, but is one of purely 
" Baptistic " origin. 

Dr. Lofton contends that while there have been no reg- 
ularly organized " Baptist " churches from the days of 
the New Testament, that there " has been an evangelical 
succession of Baptist people from the days of the apostles." 
How could there have been such a people in existence when 
baptism, the very thing that the Doctor says differentiates 
the Baptists from all others, was lost for hundreds of 
years? Furthermore, if it should be granted that in the 
seventeenth century churches were restored after the 
model of New Testament churches, in doctrine and wor- 
ship, how could it have been possible to restore a name 
(the denominational name "Baptist") which had never 
had an existence? 

Our brother makes the same perverted use and misappli- 
cation of Christ's language, " The gates of Hades shall not 
prevail against it" (Matt. 16: 18), that the Roman Cath- 
olics do. Christ never said that the gates of Hades should 
not prevail against his church, but he did say that the 
gates of Hades should not prevail against his building his 
church. He made a promise that " upon this rock I will 
build my church," and the gates of Hades or death, which 
is meant, should not prevail or hinder him from fulfilling 
the promise to build the church. "Hades" means, as Dr. Lof- 
ton well knows, the state of the dead or disembodied spirits 
into which Christ had to go; but the gates of death or 
Hades, which would shut him in for a time, should not 
prevail over him — not the church. The church is composed 
of men and women, living stones, built up a spiritual house 
(1 Pet. 2: 5); and we know that the gates of Hades or 
death will prevail over all, for all must die. Hence his 
claim of an " evangelical succession of Baptist people," 



254 Why the Baptist Name. 

based upon this passage, fails him in his fight for his de- 
nomination. 

The Doctor holds that if the practices and principles of 
the " Baptists " are according to the New Testament pat- 
tern, then their history is " as divinely inspired " as their 
principles and practices. This is church infallibility, pure 
and simple, a thing which the " Baptists " have been sup- 
posed to repudiate with might and main. The only thing 
that makes the history of the church in New Testament 
times inspired is the fact that inspired men wrote its his- 
tory, but this does not prove that all things they did were 
right and approved of God. In fact, many things the 
churches did, even in their worship, were wrong, and in- 
spired men corrected them. For the history of the Baptist 
Church to be inspired, an inspired man would have been 
necessary to have written it; but even if God were to send 
an angel to this earth with his pen dipped in the fountain 
of inspiration and record in detail the history of the " Bap- 
tist " Church, this would not prove it to be modeled after 
New Testament churches, which conformed to the teach- 
ings of the Holy Spirit. 

Brother Lofton still contends that " Baptist history would 
have been impossible without the Baptist name," and I am 
not at all disposed to call that in question, unless he makes 
" Baptist churches " churches of Christ. But since he 
makes the history of the church of which he is a member 
depend upon the existence of the name * Baptist," as he 
uses it, then his church had absolutely no history until the 
seventeenth century, for the name " Baptist " cannot be 
found applied to any religious institution either in sacred 
or profane history before that date. Surely this fact 
should have much weight in proving the Doctor's church a 
sect among sects. 

The Doctor insists that " Baptists and Baptist history 
have been the spontaneous and constant result of gospel 
' seed ' since the days of the apostles, through perpetual 
reproduction." Now, when God organized the material 
world, he made provision for the perpetuation of vegetable 
matter in this wise: "And God said, Let the earth put forth 






Lofton-Smith Discussion. 255 

grass, herbs yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit 
after their kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the 
earth." (Gen. 1: 11.) The same principle holds good with 
reference to the organization of his kingdom in which is a 
spiritual seed, the word of God (Luke 8: 11), and it will 
bring forth only the kind of fruit contained in the seed. 
(1) The seed of the kingdom did not bring forth a denomi- 
nation, but the Baptist Church, according to Dr. Lofton 
himself, is a denomination. (2) The seed of the kingdom 
brought forth only Christians, but Brother Lofton's doc- 
trine brings forth "Baptists." (3) The seed of the king- 
dom places before the believing penitent and baptism the 
simple confession of Christ; Dr. Lofton's doctrine places 
an experience that God has for Christ's sake pardoned sins 
and the vote of the church before the candidate and bap- 
tism. Hence there is the width of the heavens between 
the seed of the kingdom and that which makes Baptists and 
Baptist churches. 

Again, the seed of the kingdom puts in each local con- 
gregation a plurality of elders and deacons (Phil. 1: 2; 
Acts 20: 17; Acts 14: 23; Tit. 1: 5); but the doctrine of 
the " Baptists " usually has only one " pastor " to a church, 
and sometimes only one " pastor " for four churches. Dr. 
Lofton has an assistant " pastor," who is studying under 
him for the ministry in the Central Baptist Church of Nash- 
ville, but neither of them is a New Testament elder. He 
says the size of the church must determine how many 
elders should be in it. Well, the word of God puts more 
than one in each church, without sashing how many there 
shall be, but it says elders and not elder. When Paul is 
describing the qualifications of a bishop, he says nothing 
about the number for each church; but when he appointed, 
it was "elders in every church." (Acts 14: 23.) 

I knew he could never defend his claim without saying 
and proving that the Baptist Church contains all of God's 
children on earth, and so he surrenders his contention 
when he says that all of God's children " are members of 
his spiritual body irrespective of all external organisms." 
Then the " Baptist " Church is an institution made up of 



256 Why the Baptist Name. 

external organisms! Now, my good brother certainly 
knows that Christ has only one oody of any kind (Eph. 
4: 4; 1 Cor. 12: 13), and, therefore, it is either spiritual 
or otherwise. Which will he say it is? If he says it is a 
" spiritual " body, then every one of its organs is spiritual, 
for who can conceive of a body with organs of a different 
nature? The opposite of " spiritual " is " carnal " or 
fleshly, and I will ask my brother: Have you turned Roman 
Catholic — holding to two bodies, with the pope the head 
of one? O, no, Brother Lofton, Christ has only one body, 
and it is spiritual in every function, organ, and ordinance, 
and you must either admit now that baptism is a spiritual 
ordinance or organ, else hold to the two-body theory. We 
are united to his body by baptism (1 Cor. 12: 13; Rom. 
6: 3, 4), and certainly a carnal or fleshly ordinance can- 
not play such a part in one's becoming a member of a spir- 
itual body. It now develops that Dr. Lofton has never 
seen anything in the ordinance of baptism but water! 
That is simply the material element denoting a spiritual 
obedience, like bread and wine, material elements, denotes 
a spiritual and holy communion with the Lord. Does he 
see nothing more than the material of bread and the fruit 
of the vine when he communes? If so, why can he not see 
more than merely the material element of water in bap- 
tism? 

In seeking to justify his salvation by the " faith alone " 
theory, he refers to what he calls "the latest and clearest 
apostolic enactment on the law of baptism." Reader, does 
it stand to reason that the apostles, who were guided by 
the Holy Spirit in their ministry, would preach and bap- 
tize people for ten years without giving the full and com- 
plete law on every phase of the gospel? Is it not a re- 
corded fact that they stated in the clearest and -fullest 
manner the position and design of baptism, as well as faith 
and repentance in the economy of grace, in the very first 
sermon preached? (Acts 2: 36-38.) Any cause that de- 
mands such a handling of God's word for its support as 
Dr. Lofton's position requires of him should cause intelli- 
gent people to think seriously before accepting it. He vir- 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 257 

tually says that the miraculous demonstration at the house 
of Cornelius (Acts 10) proves that he and his house were 
saved before baptism, when there is not one word in the 
record to sustain him. In order to get Cornelius and his 
family saved before baptism, he has to change both the 
commission Christ gave to his apostles and the sermon of 
Peter on Pentecost. Christ said: "He that believeth and 
is baptized shall be saved " (Mark 16: 16) ; but Dr. Lofton's 
position forces him to take baptism from the place where 
the Son of God put it and make it read : " He that believeth 
and is saved should be baptized." It forces him to take 
baptism from where the Holy Spirit put it, " Repent ye, 
and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus 
Christ unto the remission of your sins" (Acts 2: 38), and 
make it read: "Repent ye, and be baptized every one of 
you in the name of Christ because your sins have already 
been forgiven." I would not tamper with the word of God 
in that manner for this whole universe. 

But he seems to think that the passage which says, 
" Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, 
and believeth on him that sent me, hath eternal life, and 
cometh not into judgment, but hath passed out of death 
into life" (John 5: 24), conflicts with "He that believeth 
and is baptized shall be saved," if baptism is allowed to 
come before the promise, " shall be saved." He errs, not 
knowing the Scriptures nor how to properly divide and 
apply the word. (2 Tim. 2: 15.) He should know that 
the great commission in which Christ placed baptism as 
one of the conditions with which man must comply in 
order to reach the promise of salvation (Mark 16: 16) 
had not been given, and that Christ was addressing the 
Jews, who were the covenanted children of God at that 
time. The woman (Luke 7: 50) to whom Christ said, 
" Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace," was also a child 
of God, but even she on that occasion had more than 
faith alone. She was performing acts of loving service 
when Christ spoke those words. But suppose he could 
show that while Christ was on earth and before he gave 
the commission to his apostles that he saved a million 
17 



258 Why the Baptist Name. 

people without being baptized, then what? Does that prove 
that after he commanded men through the apostles to be 
baptized for the remission of sins that man has the right 
to expect his sins to be forgiven without being baptized? 
What kind of reasoning is this in which my friend is 
engaged? Has he read Paul on the matter of the divine 
will or testament? " For where a testament is, there must 
of necessity be the death of him that made it. For a testa- 
ment is of force where there hath been death: for it doth 
never avail while he that made it liveth." (Heb. 9: 16, 
17.) Christ's will or testament in which he made provi- 
sion for salvation through the gospel was not published to 
the world until after his death, for, as Paul says, it 
was not in force while Christ was on the earth. Hence 
the apostles, who were the divinely appointed executors 
of Christ's will, published on the first Pentecost after his 
resurrection the contents of that will, among which we 
find baptism for the remission of sins. (Acts 2: 38.) No 
one who makes a proper division and application of God's 
word will ever make the fatal blunder of going back of 
the publication of that will and the subsequent unfolding 
of it regarding Christian duty to learn anything concern- 
ing the great scheme of redemption. 

Besides all this, the faith that saves the soul is used in- 
terchangeably with the word " obey." " He that believeth 
on the Son hath eternal life; but he that obeyeth not the 
Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on 
him." (John 3: 36, A. R. V.) Any one can see at a glance 
that the faith that leads to eternal life is the faith that 
obeys, for the passage plainly says that if we obey not, 
the wrath of God abides on us. Brother Lof+on and all 
others would better keep their hands off of the blood- 
sealed will of the Lord Jesus Christ, and not tamper with 
it in the least. 

James plainly says: "For as the body apart from the 
spirit is dead, even so faith apart from works is dead." 
(James 2: 26.) The Doctor's "faith alone" is like a dead 
tree that brings forth no fruit, and should, therefore, be 
hewn down and cast away. The trouble with all of the 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 259 

" faith alone " teachers is that they have failed to recog- 
nize the fact that the Scriptures reveal two laws — one 
called " the law of sin and death " and the other " the law 
of the Spirit of life" (Rom. 8: 2), or "the law of works" 
and " the law of faith " (Rom. 3: 27). The " law of faith " 
here is simply the gospel of Jesus Christ, of which baptism 
is a part, while the " law of works " refers to the moral 
law, which, if a man could have kept in every point, he 
would thereby have become his own savior, and salvation 
would have been a matter of debt upon the part of God. 
The " law of works," by which no one could be justified, 
because no one could keep it inviolate, was not associated 
with grace at all, while the " law of faith," of which 
baptism is a part, is associated with and looks to grace 
for mercy and pardon. 



Dr. Lofton's Second Reply. 

I did not mean to say that my Brother Smith's religion 
was a "cold" and "mechanical" affair, personally; for 
from what he has said of his experience of grace, I be- 
lieve he was saved by grace through faith before he got 
into the water; but my reference above expressed was to 
his theory of religion as held by himself and people. I do 
not "judge" of his or their religion personally; and I 
agree with my opponent that, judged by the standard of 
morality and other excellencies, they do not suffer by com- 
parison with Baptists or other people. However, with all 
their claims over other people, they are no better than 
other people. Some of the Pharisees did better than any 
of us do. 

I confess to the charge that where the Bible declares the 
Holy Spirit says or does anything in the salvation of man 
it is of necessity done " directly " and " mysteriously " 
through the word. Jesus (John 3: 3-8), in discoursing on 
the new birth of the Spirit, says: "The Spirit [like the 
blowing of the wind] breatheth where he will, and thou 



260 Why the Baptist Name. 

hearest the voice thereof, hut knowest not whence he com- 
eth, and whither he goeth: so is [not does] every one born 
of the Spirit" — that is, every one that hears the Spirit's 
voice, or word, and upon, or in, whom the Spirit breathes 
the breath of eternal life, as God breathed the breath of 
life into Adam, or as the Spirit of Jehovah (Ezek. 37: 2-15) 
breathed life into the bodies which the word had organized 
out of dry bones. The Spirit does not breathe through the 
word, only as he accompanies his word to the spiritually 
dead soul he makes alive in Christ. (Eph. 2: 5.) 

My opponent may think he has shown from the Scrip- 
tures and Dr. Armitage that I do not get my denomina- 
tional name from the word of God; but I am sure that I 
do find the word " Baptist " in the word of God, the title 
of the man " sent " of God to preach repentance and faith 
for the remission of sins and to symbolize the fact by 
baptism, from which he took his name as expressive of 
his whole divine mission, and which led Dr. Armitage to 
call him " the great typical Baptist of all ages," and Alex- 
ander Campbell to call him " the first Baptist preacher." 
Moreover, I have shown not only that " Baptist " is a 
scriptural name, but that it is not sectarian; and if this or 
any other name must derive its unsectarian validity by 
embracing the entire body of Christ on earth in a visible 
organism, then there is not a church of Christ on earth. 
I have shown, moreover, that Baptist churches are modeled 
after the churches of the New Testament pattern — organism, 
ordinances, officers, and all; and I have shown that history 
has ascribed to the Baptists an antiquity which reaches 
back to the days of the apostles themselves. Cardinal 
Hosius, president ot the Council of Trent, A.D. 1750, speaks 
of the Anabaptists as existent and suffering " for twelve 
hundred years past" his time. Drs. Dermont and Ypeig, 
1800 A.D., appointed by the king of Holland to ascertain 
the claims of the Dutch Baptists, said: "The Baptists may 
be considered the only Christian community which has 
stood since the apostles; and as a Christian society which 
has preserved pure the doctrine of the gospel through all 
ages" Mosheim (Vol. IV., page 427) says: "The true 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 261 

origin of that sect which acquired the name 'Anabaptist ' 
. . . is hid in the remotest depths of antiquity." 

Recently Dr. Shedd, the great Presbyterian theologian, 
said: "Among the denominations we all look to the Baptists 
for steady and firm adherence to sound doctrine." One of 
the ablest Congregationalists, Dr. Withrow, of Chicago, 
says: "There is not a denomination of evangelical Chris- 
tians that is throughout as sound as the Baptist denomi- 
nation, ... as true to the simple gospel of God as it 
is revealed in the word." 

We were called "Anabaptists " down to the seventeenth 
century, when the prefix was left off our name; and though 
not always regular, or having an unbroken succession, we 
were substantially Baptists, which " preserved pure the 
doctrine of the gospel through all ages;" and still the high- 
est scholarship declares now that we are " true to the simple 
gospel of God." We have ever been after the manner and 
character of John the Baptist, our prototype; and such a 
succession and inheritance cannot be classed as sectarian. 

My opponent cites the Paulicians, according to Benedict, 
as having no clergy; but according to the " Key of Truth," 
the late work of Conybeare, who traces their history down 
to the present day, they had their church officers; they 
held strictly to repentance, faith, and believers' baptism — 
though postponing baptism until they were certain of the 
convert's conversion. My opponent misrepresents me with 
reference to that part of the Paterine Confession which 
says: "Faith without works could not save a man." I 
hold with James that a dead faith saves no man; and that 
the evidence of saving faith is confession, baptism, and 
good works, although not saved by these at all, but by 
faith alone. I judge that this is what the Paterines meant. 
As to John Smith, he restored the ideal of a Baptist church 
in the light of the Scriptures, and he based it upon the 
theory of believers' baptism. His principle was precisely 
right, though his baptism was irregular and unscriptural 
in form; and when the Baptists of England restored ex- 
clusive immersion about 1640-1641, they repudiated Smith's 
self-baptism. As I have already repeatedly said, I make no 



262 Why the Baptist Name. 

claim to the regular and unbroken link-succession of Bap- 
tist churches; and I admit that, in all the bodies claimed 
as Baptists down the ages, there were some irregularities 
not consistent with Baptist doctrine and practice now; but 
through their persecutions and harassments, they were 
substantially Baptists, and in their gradual succession and 
development they produced the denomination as we now 
have it. My opponent asks, if we claim the true baptism 
and the sole right of administering it, where did we get it? 
I answer that we had it all the time in some places, and 
where we did not have it we restored it according to the 
Scriptures, just as Israel restored circumcision in the Prom- 
ise Land. (Josh. 5: 2-9.) Like the Israelites, Baptists 
have always had an evangelical and unbroken succession 
of people and principles; and however in captivity, or 
broken up in organism, or scattered by sword, they have 
lived, or spontaneously sprung up and organized, in various 
bodies and places, through the centuries, until liberty 
brought them to their permanent and present form and 
order. 

It is true, as I have said, that the gospel seems to lay 
no particular stress upon the name of the churches; and, 
as I have said, if all God's people were one in gospel order, 
organism, ordinance, office, and doctrine, there might be 
no use for any name save the church of God or of Christ 
or of locality, or simply " churches," as in the New Testa- 
ment. But if there was no other reason for the Baptist 
name, it has become our inheritance as the symbol and 
slogan of orthodoxy and of differentiation from the reli- 
gious world. Our stand against the world, and the stand 
of the world against us, on the line of gospel order and 
doctrine, organism, ordinance, and office, has crystallized 
the " Baptist " name and position into a historical neces- 
sity in view of Baptist integrity and responsibility as re- 
lated to God and humanity. We are where we could not 
now give up our name, if it was otherwise right to do so. 
There is much in a name when it is synonymous with 
character and truth, past achievement and present respon- 
sibility; and there is no other name, alone, that we could 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 263 

take without surrendering our identity and power for good. 
The word " Christian," alone, which has become of such 
uncertain sound, would lose us our history and distinction 
in behalf of our principles and achievements, based upon 
the gospel for the centuries through which we have wit- 
nessed for Christ against the world and by which we have 
given to the world its brightest and best in history. Bap- 
tists have never done this world any harm, and they have 
done it its greatest good in every way. 

My opponent insists upon the use of " sound words," but 
there never was a sounder word than " Baptist." He asks 
how do I know that God is pleased with the use of that 
name. He has preserved us through the centuries of os- 
tracism, persecution, and martyrdom for his name's sake, 
and crowned us with the grandest history. Again, he asks 
if Baptist churches are gospel churches, why not employ 
the names of " ownership " and " distinction " used by the 
Holy Spirit, instead of " Baptist," to designate the churches? 
We do call them the churches of God and of Christ, and so 
hold them with historic and changeless devotion, however 
differentiated from unscriptural institutions by the symbolic 
and characteristic name of our baptismal prototype, which 
cannot detract from the names of " ownership " and " dis- 
tinction " employed by the Holy Spirit, but supports and 
illustrates them. As suggested by my opponent, I do not 
believe that all denominations claiming to be the churches 
of God or of Christ are such organically or according to 
the order of Christ, yet it is not upon the ground of a 
false claim, for that reason, that I adopt the denominational 
name of " Baptist." The name properly belongs to us and 
has been historically fixed upon us; and it is, of itself, a 
differentiating appellation against unscriptural denomina- 
tionalism. 

My brother is surprised at my contention that " religious 
liberty " consists in " worshiping God according to con- 
science." My reference was to the right of worshiping 
God as we please against human interference, and not 
against the right of God, who demands of us " a good con- 
science toward God," in order to worship at all, and of 



264 Why the Baptist Name. 

which God alone is judge. After all, however, a man's 
conscience is guided by what he believes is right in reli- 
gion; and although his conscience can never tell him what 
is right — and although the word of God alone can do that — 
yet God alone is the judge. It is an unwarranted slur of 
my opponent in saying: " Such doctrine is no part of the 
model of New Testament churches, but is one of purely 
' Baptistic ' origin." Baptists are in perfect accord with 
the New Testament in the position that no man, church, or 
government has the right to judge of another's conscience, 
right or wrong, in matters of faith or religion. This is 
" religious liberty " for which Baptists alone contended 
through most of the Christian centuries; and the triumph 
of the principle is mainly due to them in modern times. 

I have not contended that there have been no regularly 
organized Baptist churches from the days of the New Testa- 
ment, and that there was only an evangelical succession of 
Baptist people from the days of the apostles. Nor have I 
said that baptism was lost for hundreds of years. The 
apostolic churches here and there succeeded for several 
centuries; and when crushed out by Antichrist, they were 
represented by dissenting bodies down to the Reformation, 
chiefly Anabaptists, or Baptists, who came down to the 
seventeenth century and constituted the present denomi- 
nation. There never was a period in which there was no 
church organism among these people; and however crushed 
out, they sprung up again somewhere. There never was a 
time when baptism did not exist among them somewhere, 
though not always in regular form in every place. What- 
ever the organic or baptismal status of these dissenting 
bodies at any time, there always existed in unbroken suc- 
cession a Baptist people and principles; and out of these 
restoration and reorganization were kept up till the seven- 
teenth century, when restoration and reorganization ended 
in the present body of Baptists. My opponent asks, if all 
this should be granted, " how could it have been possible 
to restore a name [the name " Baptist "] which had never 
had an existence? " The word under the form of "Ana 
baptist" had been in existence all the time; and learned 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 265 

writers had applied the name " Baptists " to these people 
as Baptistici, Taufer, Dooper, Doopsgezinden, and the like. 
History, in fixing the character and status of these people, 
calls them " Baptists." Besides all this, a people can he 
Baptist in principles and practices with the exception of 
baptism, since with Baptists baptism is nothing without 
everything else preceding. 

Christ did not say that the gates of Hades should not 
prevail against his " building his church," but against " it" 
the church, which he would " build; " and by the word 
" church " he evidently meant his universal spiritual church, 
of which the individual organic church would be the con- 
crete exhibition, or visible type, on earth. The gates of 
Hades cannot prevail against the spiritual at any time, nor 
against the organic ultimately. 

I do not mean that Baptist history is " divinely inspired " 
in the sense of " infallibility," as are our New Testament 
" principles and practices," but in the sense of a divine 
guidance or providence, even through our errors and mis- 
takes, as the history of Israel and of the Acts of the Apos- 
tles. If our principles and practices are scriptural, our 
history is scriptural and so recorded, and this is all I mean 
by its being divinely inspired. 

In making the history of the Baptists depend upon their 
name, I only follow history, which recognizes us as Bap- 
tists through all the Christian centuries down to the seven- 
teenth century and to the present time, which history called 
us "Anabaptists" and "Baptists" before 1644 in England; 
and whether or not at all times before that date we were 
called " Baptists," we were Baptists", all the same. I affirm 
that " Baptists and Baptist history have been the sponta- 
neous and constant result of gospel ' seed ' since the days 
of the apostles, through perpetual reproduction." My op- 
ponent, in accord with his peculiar denominational view, 
assumes that the " seed " of the gospel did not bring forth 
the Baptist denomination; but history shows that it did, 
and so do the scriptural principles, practices, religious 
character and work of the Baptists demonstrate. His next 
objection is based upon the difference in method between 



266 Why the Baptist Name. 

him and myself in receiving a convert into the ehurch by 
baptism. I ask no experience of the candidate beyond 
what is involved in a confession of Christ through faith 
upon which the Scriptures base the forgiveness of sins; 
and as to the vote of the church in receiving such a con- 
vert upon his baptism into the church, the principle is 
founded upon the consent and fellowship of the church 
thus expressed, and is in perfect accord with the elective 
principle and practice of the New Testament churches in 
similar matters. Even if it were not, it violates no scrip- 
tural principle whatever, and is a very microscopical ob- 
jection on the part of my opponent. 

I make no objection to a plurality of elders in every 
church just as we have a plurality of deacons; but it does 
not invalidate the claim of IMew Testament churchhood if 
it has but one elder and one deacon, or if it has neither. 
A scriptural church is a church of Christ before it elects 
and ordains its elders and deacons, as was the case with 
the church at Jerusalem; and when Peter moved to elect 
Matthias to the apostolate, he submitted the matter to the 
sovereign choice of the church upon terms of perfect equal- 
ity with the least member of this body of Christ. I think 
every church should have an eldership and a diaconate 
according to its needs; but even if there was some irregu- 
larity, as there were irregularities in the apostolic churches, 
on this point, it would not invalidate the claim of a church 
to apostolicity. A church could consist of two or three 
members in which a plurality of elders and deacons would 
be impossible; and yet to all intents and purposes it would 
be a church of Christ. 

The proposition of my opponent that, to validate the 
claim of the Baptist churches, they must contain " all of 
God's children on earth," in order to be the churches of 
Christ, simply assumes that there is not visibly a body of 
Christ on earth, unless my opponent, according to his con- 
ception, means the body to which he belongs. But he has 
admitted elsewhere that there are some of God's people in 
some of the unscriptural institutions claiming to be 
churches of Christ; therefore he kills his own proposition 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 267 

that to be the organic body of Christ you must contain all 
the children of God on earth. The Scriptures evidently 
teach the universal spiritual church, as in Eph. 1: 23, and 
they reveal a multitude of visible organisms called 
" churches,' 1 '' which are types and concrete expressions of 
the spiritual body of Christ. They are not always, if ever, 
spiritual in all their membership, and they are organized 
for the spiritual and practical promotion of the kingdom. 
I grant that there is but one body spiritually, and that all 
the organisms of that body, constituted according to the 
New Testament, are the only visible churches of Christ; 
but as my brother admits elsewhere, there are some of 
God's people in unscriptural organisms, and hence all of 
God's people cannot be in Christ's visible organisms, which 
I claim to be Baptist churches, according to the order of 
the New Testament. I admit that we are all baptized into 
one spiritual body and into the organisms of that body 
by affiliation or relationship; and I admit the spiritual im- 
port of baptism and the Lord's Supper as splendid symbols 
and teachers of the great truths signified by those ordi- 
nances; but they have no sacramental or spiritual efficacy 
in themselves. 

In referring to Acts 10: 43-48 as the " latest and clearest 
apostolic enactment on the law of baptism," I mean to say 
that it is more elaborate in its details, less complex in 
statement, and completely explanatory of Acts 2: 38. My 
opponent says that there is not one word in the divine 
record to sustain me in the position that the miraculous 
demonstration at the house of Cornelius proves that he 
and his house were saved before baptism; but, against this 
same assertion before, I have referred him to Acts 15: 7-9, 
in which Peter says that in " giving " Cornelius and his 
house " the Holy Spirit," God " bare them witness " of 
their faith, knowing their hearts, making no distinction 
between them and the Jews, " cleansing their hearts by 
faith,''' all before baptism; and hence what was true of 
Cornelius and his house at Caesarea, in this respect, was 
true of the Jews at Pentecost, God making " no distinction 
between them." Of course, " he that believeth and is 



268 Why the Baptist Name. 

baptized shall be saved" (Mark 16: 16), just as believing 
" with the heart unto righteousness " and making " confes- 
sion" with the mouth saves (Rom. 10: 9, 10); but there 
cannot be two salvations, one by mouth and afterwards 
another by water. Cornelius and his house were unques- 
tionably saved before baptism; and hence confession and 
baptism are respectively the expression and sign of salva- 
tion by faith, and so accompanying and signifying salva- 
tion by faith, that, by an Orientalism, the sign is put for the 
thing signified, the effect for the cause. 

It is absolutely clear that John 5: 24 implies that the 
very moment a man believes, that moment he " hath eter- 
nal life, and cometh not into judgment, but hath passed out 
of death into life " — not will have eternal life, not will 
pass from death unto life — when baptized. The great com- 
mission of Christ does not place baptism as a condition of 
salvation. It commands us to " make disciples of all na- 
tions, baptizing them " afterwards, and not baptizing them 
to make disciples. (Matt. 28: 19.) I agree with my oppo- 
nent as to the will or testament question (Heb. 9: 16), 
but there is no change in the plan of salvation by grace 
through justification by faith (without work, as Paul puts 
it) after the death of Christ; and his great commission 
shows that " disciples " were made by teaching, and that 
they were baptized after having been made " disciples," 
and not so made by baptism. John 3: 36 does not help 
my brother at all. It is perfectly clear that " he that be- 
lieveth on the Son hath eternal life;" but he that does not 
obey the law of faith, by believing on the Son, " shall not 
see life," etc. Christ was not dreaming of baptism as im- 
plied by the word " obey" 

James (2: 26) truly says, "For as the body apart from 
the spirit is dead, even so faith apart from works is 
dead;" but he was specifically addressing Christians and 
not penitent believers with reference to baptism. A dead 
faith is the evidence of an unsaved professor of religion; 
and James was trying to teach his brethren that justifica- 
tion by faith unto life was a fruitless profession without 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 269 

justification by work unto proof, as would have been true 
in the case of Abraham, who was saved by faith and after- 
wards circumcised, twenty years before God proved him. 
The evidence of saving faith is obedience, first, in confes- 
sion; second, in baptism; third, in good works and right 
living; and the man who professes repentance and faith in 
Christ, whatever his confession, and refuses to be baptized, 
has a dead faith and is unsaved — that is all. 

The Baptist maxim is true: Blood before water, Christ 
before church, the Holy Spirit, with the word, before all, in 
all, and through all. In the deliverance of Israel from 
Egyptian bondage the Holy Spirit was typified by Jehovah's 
presence in the "burning bush;" and throughout all the 
process of Israel's emancipation the Holy Spirit was ever 
present in all and through all its operation. On the night 
of the passover the Hebrews were put under the blood of 
the lamb, the type of their justification and the charter of 
their freedom; and they ate the flesh of the lamb, the type 
of new life or regeneration. They were then and there 
saved from the destroying angel and emancipated from the 
bondage of Egypt. Their march to the Red Sea baptism 
was under the guidance and protection of the pillar of 
cloud and fire, the symbol of the Holy Spirit's presence, 
and under the leadership of Moses, the type of Christ, saved 
and kept by the blood and life of the lamb, the type of 
Christ's efficacious atonement and the pledge of their free- 
dom; and they were baptized in the cloud and in the sea 
unto Moses, in a state of salvation and safety, typical of 
our baptism unto Christ in water — signifying acceptance 
and profession of, and allegiance to, our Deliverer. Hence 
Israel was saved and perfectly safe under the blood — the 
covenant of justification and freedom — from the beginning 
and before his baptism; and his baptism was simply the 
formal and final display and declaration of his salvation as 
a fact already procured and secured, and no part of the 
salvation itself, since he was saved whether he had come by 
the way of the sea or not. The Red Sea baptism was in- 
tended as an objective and symbolic declaration of death, 



270 Why the Baptist Name. 

burial, and resurrection with Christ and of profession and 
allegiance to him as our Deliverer; and it signally displays 
the precedency of blood before water, of Christ before the 
organized church, and of the Holy Spirit, with his word, 
before all, in all, over all, and through all. 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 271 



MR. SMITH'S REVIEW OF DR. LOFTON'S 
REPLY ON PAGES 37-45. 

These, my final replies, will necessarily be short because 
of my limited space. I shall, therefore, notice only such 
points in my opponent's arguments as seem to me de- 
serving of attention. First, then, I refuse to accept his 
apology for calling me a " Campbellite," because he has 
most signally failed to prove that I am one. Even if he had 
succeeded in convicting me of following the " teaching " 
and " practice " of A. Campbell, it would still devolve upon 
him to prove that Mr. Campbell did not teach and practice 
the truth, a thing he has not done, and never can do. But 
he desires to know: "Where did they originate?" What 
has that to do with the question of whether or not I teach 
and practice the truth? My friend certainly has forgotten 
his full and hearty indorsement of the following, else he 
would not have asked such a question: "A church organ- 
ized to-day on the basis of New Testament teaching would 
be a New Testament church if none other like it had existed 
since the first apostolic church." ( Page 236. ) In view of this 
undeniable fact admitted by my opponent, I ask: Why could 
not Alexander Campbell have organized a church on the 
basis of New Testament teaching as well as any one else? 
He certainly had, according to Dr. Lofton, the right kind 
of baptism, for he was baptized by a Baptist minister. I 
no more " assumed " the name " Christian " than I as- 
sumed the name " Smith." I was born into one of these 
names by flesh and blood, and into the other by " water 
and Spirit." (See John 3: 5.) They are both family 
names, and I am not ashamed of either. 

The Doctor says : " Philip did not preach baptism for the 
remission of sins as Alexander Campbell did." He most 
certainly preached the same that Peter did on Pentecost, 



272 Why the Baptist Name. 

and Dr. Lofton will not deny it. What, then, did Peter 
preach? " Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in 
the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins." 
(Acts 2: 38.) Now the very cream of the scholarship of the 
world did the work of revising the Scriptures, and they 
translated eis in this passage by the preposition unto, and 
by no sort of legitimate reasoning can " unto " be made to 
refer to remission of sins before baptism. The Doctor says, 
" Of course he believed what Peter said according to Mc- 
Quiddy," and " following McQuiddy's interpretation my op- 
ponent became a Campbellite." For assumption, this is 
par excellence. McQuiddy told sinners what to do to be 
saved in the very language of the apostle, and that is the 
reason why I understood baptism to be for the remission 
of sins. It is the interpretation of Peter's language by Dr. 
Lofton and others that keeps multiplied thousands from 
understanding what Peter said. 

With reference to Josephus, the Doctor's chief witness, 
I will say that the testimony of an inspired man is more 
preferable than that of his infidel Jew. We can only tell 
what a writer means by the plain import of the words he 
uses in expressing his mind; and, according to this ob- 
viously just rule, if Armitage, the Baptist historian, did 
not mean what his language clearly implies, then no mor- 
tal can tell what he did mean. In commenting on Acts 2: 
38, he says: "Peter offered them salvation through the 
blood of Jesus for the sin of shedding it, and urged them 
to leave the wicked hierarchy and enter the new kingdom 
by faith and baptism." ("History of the Baptists," page 
73.) Mark you, he does not say, as Dr. Lofton teaches, 
that they could enter the kingdom by " faith alone," but 
by faith and baptism. Brother Lofton has people saved 
" out of the kingdom of God," because he has them saved 
before doing that which brings them into the kingdom. 
My opponent did not quote enough from Armitage, there- 
fore I will help him. He says: "Men who professed 
faith and were baptized were regarded by those churches 
[apostolic churches] as true believers, until their conduct 
proved the contrary." ("History of the Baptists," page 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 273 

140.) Thus he teaches that none were regarded as " true 
believers" before baptism; and to show what stress he 
laid on this divine command, he says: "Through grace ye 
are all the children of God, for as many of you as were 
baptized into Christ, put on Christ." ("History of the 
Baptists," page 139.) What is the force and meaning of 
the word " for " in this connection? Is it not used to 
express the reason for saying, " Ye are all the children of 
God through grace? " The very evidence of the fact that 
they were the children of God through grace was their 
baptism into Christ. Hence when Armitage says, " No, the 
apostle insists that the purity of your conscience as a saved 
man must correspond to the profession which you make 
when you are buried with Christ in baptism," he does not 
contradict what he says about salvation through grace 
coming to those who put on Christ in baptism, for he does 
not say that the saved man was saved before baptism. 
Armitage further says: 

Baptism is met with in the New Testament only in con- 
nection with a certain set of persons, sentiments, and virtues. 
The baptized are characterized as " elect," " saints," " disci- 
ples," " believers," and their state of mind is that of " faith," 
" obedience," " remission of sins," " following after holi- 
ness," and " enduring hardness as good soldiers of Jesus 
Christ;" names which cannot be given to, and things which 
cannot be said of, infants. (" History of the Baptists," 
page 144.) 

Mark you, he says that only the baptized are character- 
ized in the New Testament as " elect," " saints," " believ- 
ers," and enjoying that state of mind to which remission 
of sins belongs. How different is all this from the doctrine 
for which my brother is contending! But I have a rarer 
treat for the Doctor from his Brother Armitage than even 
the foregoing. He quotes approvingly from Liddon the 
following: 

Regeneration implies a double process — one destructive, 
the other constructive; by it the old life is killed, and the 
new life forthwith bursts into existence. This double 
process is effected by the sacramental incorporation of the 
baptized, first with Christ crucified and dead, and then 
with Christ risen from the dead to life; although the lan- 

18 



274 Why the Baptist Name. 

guage of the apostle distinctly intimates that a continued 
share in the resurrection life depends upon the cooperation 
of the will of the Christian. But the moral realities of the 
Christian life, to which the grace of baptism originally in- 
troduces the Christian, correspond with, and are effects of, 
Christ's death and resurrection. Regarded historically, 
these events belong to the irrevocable past. . . . He is 
not merely made to sit together in heavenly places as be- 
ing in Christ Jesus; he is a member of his body, as out of 
his flesh and out of his bones. And of this profound incor- 
poration baptism is the original instrument. ... As 
the neophyte [one instructed] is plunged beneath the wa- 
ters, so the old nature is buried with Christ. As Christ, 
crucified and entombed, rises with resistless might from 
the grave which can no longer hold him, so, to the eye 
of faith, the Christian is raised from the bath [baptism] 
of regeneration radiant with a supernatural life. ("His- 
tory of the Baptists," page 140.) 

If Dr. Lofton were to read this from the pen of his oppo- 
nent in this discussion, he would most vigorously brand it 
as rank " Campbellism;" but since it is the teaching of his 
Brother Armitage, what will he term it? Not a single word 
relative to the design of baptism in the economy of grace 
ever fell from the eloquent lips nor was ever traced by 
the graceful and classic pen of Alexander Campbell, re- 
sembling what Dr. Lofton calls " water regeneration " half 
as much as these words from Armitage. This Baptist his- 
torian says that " the moral realities of the Christian life " 
are originally introduced by the grace of baptism. The 
Doctor refers to "obedience of faith" (Rom. 1: 5), and 
claims that " faith " here does not include baptism, but 
simply the internal act of believing. He should know bet- 
ter than this, for the word " faith " in this passage, as well 
as in many others, refers to the gospel, and not to any 
act of the creature. This is made clear by the following 
passages: "But before faith came, we were kept in ward 
under the law, shut up unto the faith which should after- 
wards be revealed. So that the law is become our tutor to 
bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith 
[the gospel]. But now that faith is come, we are no longer 
under a tutor." (Gal. 3: 23-25.) The apostle is contrasting 
the law and the gospel, showing that justification is not 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 275 

by the law, but by faith, or the gospel. The passage in 
Acts 6: 7, "And a great company of the priests were obe- 
dient to the faith," means exactly the same as " obedience 
of faith" in Rom. 1: 5, and both are equivalent to "obe- 
dience to the gospel." 

Will Doctor Lofton dare say that baptism is not a part 
of the gospel? If he will not so contend, then is it possible 
for one to exercise " obedience of faith " or obey the gospel 
without being baptized? It is a fact worthy of note that 
" the faith " contains something to be obeyed, and what 
this is may be clearly seen by referring to Rom. 6: 17: 
" Ye became obedient from the heart to that form of teach- 
ing whereunto ye were delivered." Note that it was a 
form they obeyed, and the obedience was outward from 
the heart, and not in the heart, as merely an internal act. 
That form was baptism, because it was a form or type of 
the burial and resurrection of Christ. Furthermore, the 
Romans were not freed from sin until they obeyed that 
form. (See Rom. 6: 18.) 

Because I said that baptism produced no moral change, 
but that one had to be prepared in heart by faith and 
repentance for baptism, Brother Lofton says: "Here we 
have a believing, penitent, loving soul subject to damnation 
for want of forgiveness, change of state, and union with 
Christ, attained only in water." Why did he not say " at- 
tained only in obedience to Jesus Christ, or by 'the obe- 
dience of faith?'" Ah! that would not have sounded 
enough like the Doctor's imagined " Campbellism!" Well, 
here is what a gospel preacher said to a " believing, peni- 
tent, loving soul:" "And now why tarriest thou? arise, 
and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on his 
name." (Acts 22: 16.) Again, here is what the Savior 
of the world said: " He that believeth and is baptized shall 
be saved." (Mark 16: 16.) There is no necessity of any 
" believing, penitent, loving soul being subject to damna- 
tion" who is willing to obey Christ in baptism, because to 
all such is given the power or privilege to become children 
of God. (John 1: 12.) The Doctor has here supposed a 
'* believing, penitent, loving soul " into circumstances or 



276 Why the Baptist Name. 

conditions which would render it impossible for such a 
one to obey Christ in baptism. I challenge him to find such 
a case recorded in either sacred or profane history. 



MR. SMITH'S REVIEW OF DR. LOFTON'S 
REPLY ON PAGES 73-82. 



The Doctor asserts that " the ' Baptist ' part of John's 
name is characteristic and definitive of his teaching and 
practice;" and hence it denominationally adheres to those 
who follow that teaching and practice. If this be true, 
how does my opponent account for the deathlike silence 
of inspiration on the matter? Not once in all the sacred 
record are John's converts called " Baptists," but are in- 
variably denominated as the " disciples of John." (Matt. 
9: 14.) 

Again, Dr. Lofton calls the " one birth " of " water and 
Spirit" my theory, when, in fact, it is the very language 
of the Son of God himself, who said: " Except one be born 
of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom 
of God." (John 3: 5.) Does my opponent delude himself 
with the thought that the seeker after truth will take his 
naked assertions as a refutation of the statement that there 
is only one birth into the kingdom, the elements of which 
are " water and Spirit? " The record is too plain, my 
brother, to be thus obscured by your unsupported asser- 
tions. 

Once more the Doctor insists that, in addition to hear- 
ing the voice of the Spirit through his word, the Spirit 
breathes directly — that is, without the medium of the 
word — upon the soul. I have repeatedly called for a pas- 
sage in God's word that teaches such a doctrine, and all 
that he gives me is: "The Spirit breatheth where he will, 
and thou hearest the voice thereof, but knowest not whence 
he cometh, and whither he goeth: so is every one that is 
born of the Spirit." (John 3:8.) Now, whatever may be 
affirmed of the Spirit's influence, based upon this passage, 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 277 

must be affirmed of an influence exerted by or through the 
voice of the Spirit, for it is distinctly affirmed that he 
breathes in a voice which we hear. What, then, do we 
hear? Simply the words of the Spirit — these and nothing 
more. But, he says: " So is every one that is born of the 
Spirit." Unfortunately for my friend's theory, " so is ev- 
ery one " does not refer to the operation of the Spirit upon 
spirit, nor yet to the process of the birth. To what, then, 
do the words " so is every one " refer? The Holy Spirit 
is an invisible person, and " every one," or the spirit of 
man, which is the subject of the new birth, is also an 
invisible thing, in contrast with the outward or fleshly 
man that Nicodemus had in mind. It is an illustration 
in which the invisibility of the inward or spiritual man 
is compared to the invisibility of the Holy Spirit. The 
only evidence Dr. Lofton has of a " direct " operation of 
the Holy Spirit in conversion is his feelings; but since that 
evidence squarely contradicts the word of God in that it 
places pardon before baptism, it cannot be accepted as 
proof of the proposition before us. (See Mark 16: 16.) 
God says: "He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool." 
(Prov. 28: 26.) To trust in one's own heart is to rely 
upon the impulses, feelings, and emotions of the heart as 
an evidence of acceptance with God. My friend, in refer- 
ring to John 1: 12, called to his aid a passage that has 
given him much trouble, as witnessed in his effort at reply. 
The Doctor's theory is that at the very moment when 
one believes on the name of Jesus Christ, he or she is 
then and there saved; but I have shown the passage 
teaches that those who " believed on his name " only 
had the right to become sons of God, hence had to do 
something in addition to believing. Just what that 
something additional is we find in the commission: 
" He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." (Mark 
16: 16.) The Doctor has people born the moment they 
believe on Christ, and in so teaching he has them " born 
anew" and yet not the sons of God, for believing on his 
name only gave them the right to become such. What a 
predicament into which he has fallen in his efforts to 
sustain a false doctrine /" 



278 Why the Baptist Name. 

Brother Lofton is so wedded to the doctrine of "Adamic," 
" transmitted," or " inherited " sin, that in his efforts to 
defend it he has been forced to assume the position thus 
expressed: " So the human race, body and soui, was germi- 
nally totalized in the loins of Adam before individualiza- 
tion; and upon the principle of racial unity, through a 
natural head, so sinned and inherited the nature, charac- 
ter, and consequences — the death, depravity, guilt, and 
damnation — of the Adamic sin." Thus he boldly affirms 
that souls or spirits — immaterial things — are begotten by 
and transmitted through the material substances of flesh 
and blood! One single statement from the divine Son of 
God will sweep my friend's doctrine from the face of the 
earth — viz.: " That which is bom of the flesh is flesh." 
(John 3: 6.) It is certainly high time to abandon a the- 
ory the defense of which forces a man to take such a 
position. My friend's doctrine is rank materialism. I 
still insist that "the only penalty of Adam's sin upon us 
is physical death," and no less a personage than an in- 
spired apostle sustains me. " For as in Adam all die, so 
also in Christ shall all be made alive." (1 Cor. 15: 22.) 
This shows beyond the shadow of a doubt that the death 
we died in Adam representatively is physical, which is en- 
tailed upon us because of Adam's sin, and not ours. All 
who died in Adam shall be made alive in or by Christ; 
and if this does not refer to the resurrection, in which all 
who died in Adam will be raised to life, then Universalism 
is true, and not one of Adam's race will be lost on account 
of sin. Is the Doctor prepared to accept the consequences 
of his doctrine? The word of God declares: " The soul that 
sinneth, it shall die." (Ezek. 18: 20.) Mark you, it does 
not say the soul that sinned in Adam shall die, but the 
soul that sinneth, which can mean nothing else than the 
acts of an intelligent reality or individuality. He quotes: 
" Through one trespass the judgment came unto all men 
to condemnation.''' Yes, the condemnation of physical 
death; and " through one act of righteousness [by Christ] 
the free gift came unto all men to justification of life 
[life from the grave]." Whatever the "free gift unto 
justification of life " is, it comes to all men; and if it does 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 279 

not refer to the resurrection, then is Universalism true, 
and none will be lost. My opponent still insists that the 
fact that men sin is an evidence that they have inherited 
sin; but the fact that Adam sinned, he says, does not prove 
that he had inherited sin! If it proves it in one case, 
why not in the other? I knew he could never answer my 
argument on this point, and I will leave the reader to see 
bis inconsistency. 

Brother Lofton thinks my illustration of Levi paying 
tithes in Abraham implies Levi's spiritual existence in 
the loins of Abraham. Levi's soul or spirit no more 
actually or literally existed in the loins of Abraham than 
he actually and literally paid tithes in Abraham. Only 
that part of Levi existed in the loins of Abraham of which 
Abraham was the father, and the word of God plainly de- 
clares that to be only Levi's body or flesh. " Furthermore, 
we had the fathers of our flesh to chasten us, and we gave 
them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection 
unto the Father of spirits, and live?" (Heb. 12: 9.) Here 
is a broad distinction between the father of flesh and the 
Father of spirits. One is man and the other is God, and 
yet Dr. Lofton's doctrine has God begetting in a human 
body a defiled, depraved, and sinful soul! 

Brother Lofton claims that "for" (Greek gar) in the 
passage, " For as many of you as were baptized into Christ 
did put on Christ" (Gal. 3: 27), does not assign their 
baptism as a reason why they were the children of God 
by faith. In his " Greek-English Lexicon of the New Tes- 
tament," which is recognized by scholars the world over 
as the very best, J. H. Thayer defines the use of gar under 
the second head as follows: " It adduces the cause or gives 
the reason of a preceding statement or opinion." Liddell 
and Scott's " Greek Lexicon " gives the meaning of gar as 
" simply introducing the reason or cause of what precedes." 
(Page 300.) In the light of these lexical definitions of the 
word, when the Holy Spirit said the Galatians were the 
children of God by faith in Christ Jesus, he gives as a 
reason or cause for that statement: " For [gar] as many 
of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ." 
(Gal. 3: 27.) If this does not teach that we are children 



280 Why the Baptist Name. 

of God through faith when that faith leads us to be bap- 
tized, then there is no meaning in language. The Doctor 
tries to make much of the statement, " I baptize believing 
penitents in order that they may become the children of 
God," in that he says I baptize sinners to make them 
Christians. He may call them sinners or whatever he 
pleases, but one thing is certain — viz., they are not the 
children of God until they are born again, and they are 
not thus born until baptized. (John 3: 5.) He need not 
even dream of driving me from the document sealed with 
the blood of God's Son, in which he placed salvation after 
baptism: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be 
saved." By the provisions set forth in this blood-bought 
and blood-sealed covenant I propose to stand until God 
shall call me home. 



MR. SMITH'S REVIEW OF DR. LOFTON'S 
REPLY ON PAGES 110-120. 

Brother Lofton reiterates the assertion that the position 
that one must believe on Christ, repent of his sins, with- 
out the " direct " operation of the Spirit, and be baptized 
in water for the remission of past sins, is the doctrine of 
Alexander Campbell. Well, he has made a miserable fail- 
ure in his efforts to prove his assertion, as the readers of 
this discussion can fully attest. He says that Hovey's po- 
sition relative to the design of baptism in Tit. 3: 5 is the 
same as his. Not much, my brother; for while your con- 
tention has been all along that baptism symbolizes and 
declares previous remission of sins, Hovey simply says 
that baptism represents and confesses " the divine change 
called regeneration." Regeneration is one thing and re- 
mission of sins is another; hence you cannot claim Hovey 
as a witness for your position. Hovey attributes to bap- 
tism, in Tit. 3: 5, an importance which you dare not, and 
which you cannot without yielding the contest. 

Dr. Lofton says, "We are saved by regeneration;" while 
the passage teaches that we are saved " through the wash- 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 281 

ing [bath, or baptism] of regeneration," thus making bap- 
tism a part of regeneration. 

The actions of the Ninevites fully sustain McGarvey's 
contention relative to the meaning of eis, for in expla- 
nation of their repentance God says " they turned from 
their evil way." (Jonah 3: 10.) This turning from their 
evil way is called " repented eis the preaching of Jonah," 
and simply shows they repented into the course of life de- 
manded by the preaching. Of course Jonah's preaching 
" was the ground of Ninevite repentance," but the repent- 
ance itself was (eis) into the life required by that preach- 
ing. Again, as Broadus says, " eis translated ' with refer- 
ence to the remission of sins' [Acts 2: 38] (eis aphesin 
hamartion) gives a very good sense, according to New 
Testament Greek usage," because " with reference to " here 
means future, and not past tense. 

He thinks if baptism is a " marriage certificate," that the 
marriage to Christ must take place before baptism. Paul 
says to the Corinthians, " I espoused you to one husband " 
(2 Cor. 11: 2) ; and in Acts 18: 8 it is said that "many of 
the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized." This 
shows how they were espoused or married to Christ, and 
baptism was a part of the process. Furthermore, one is 
not married to Christ until he takes upon himself the name 
of Christ, which is done in baptism, because we are bap- 
tized into his name. Hence, in baptism God certifies our 
union with Christ and the remission of sins. 

Now, Dr. Lofton admits that circumcision, an overt act, 
was God's seal of Abraham's faith; hence the seal was 
God's sign of approval, and without which Abraham had 
no approval of his faith. Now, since the overt act of cir- 
cumcision, which was a work, was God's seal or assur- 
ance to Abraham of the righteousness of his faith, why 
cannot baptism, an overt act, be God's assurance to us of 
the righteousness of our faith? But the Scriptures plainly 
state that Abraham's faith was not perfect until he had 
offered Isaac (James 2: 22), and that by this overt act of 
obedience he was justified. God was pleased with the first 
manifestation of Abraham's faith, but not until repeated 
tests did that faith reach the degree of perfection attained 



282 Why the Baptist Name. 

in offering Isaac. Just so, God is pleased with the first 
manifestation of a sinner's faith; but that faith is not per- 
fected until it is proven or tested in baptism, when God 
bestows remission of sins. Hence, " he that believeth and 
is baptized shall be saved." 

My opponent says: "The moment one believes (eis) into 
Christ his soul is connected with God," etc. If he will 
give to faith eis Christ its full meaning, I will agree that 
the moment one believes into Christ he is saved, because 
one cannot believe into Christ without being baptized. Dr. 
Lofton has one believing into Christ, and then baptized 
into Christ! How can one who is already in Christ be 
baptized into him? It would be just as reasonable to say 
of one who is already in the house that he or she could 
do something to enter into the house. 

I remind the Doctor once more that it is not a question 
of Saul's conversion, but of his pardon. He argues that 
Saul was pardoned before baptism, because Christ said to 
Ananias, "He is a chosen vessel unto me;" but the facts 
are against him. While he was a " chosen vessel," he had 
to be sanctified and fitted for the Master's use by attending 
to the things which he was told were appointed for him to 
do, the first of which was baptism. The Doctor assumes 
that Saul was filled with the Holy Spirit before baptism. 
The gospel rule is, we receive the gift of the Spirit after 
baptism. (Acts 2: 38.) He received the restoration of his 
sight by the imposition of Ananias' hands, but not the 
Spirit until after he was baptized; for Ananias could not 
impart the Spirit, not being an apostle. 

While Hackett says that faith and repentance are the 
conditions of salvation, yet, as a scholar showing the gram- 
matical relation of the passage, he was forced to make 
baptism a condition also. His language is: " It answers 
to for the remission of sins in Acts 2: 38 — i. e., submit to 
the rite in order to be forgiven." Those whom the Doctor 
calls " Campbellites " never put it any stronger than 
Hackett, the Doctor's brother, has done. 

The effort the Doctor makes in trying to prove that the 
clause, "and be baptized every one of you" (Acts 2: 38), 
is parenthetical, is diametrically opposed to the common 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 283 

rules of grammar and the scholarly men in his own 
church. The copulative " and " naturally and grammat- 
ically connects repentance and baptism, thus showing that 
baptism is for the same end or purpose as repentance. If 
they were to repent in order to be forgiven, so were they 
to be baptized in order to the same end. Hence, " and be 
baptized " is not explanatory of a remission following re- 
pentance, but is a part of the sentence, without which it 
would be incomplete. Here is what some great Baptists 
as scholars say on the matter. Hovey says: "Here repent- 
ance and baptism are represented as leading to the for- 
giveness of sins." ("Commentary on John," Appendix, 
page 420.) W. R. Harper, former president of Chicago Uni- 
versity, in a letter to J. W. Shepherd, April 22, 1893, says: 
" The preposition indicates that remission of sins is the 
end to be aimed at in the actions expressed by the predi- 
cates repent and be baptized." The learned Hackett, in 
speaking of the clause, "for the remission of sins," says: 
" This clause states the motive or object which should in- 
duce them to repent and be baptized. It enforces the en- 
tire exhortation, not one part of it to the exclusion of the 
other." (" Commentary on Acts " — 2: 38.) These eminent 
Baptist scholars repudiate Dr. Lofton's " parenthetical 
clause" theory, and plainly say that baptism with re- 
pentance was in order to the forgiveness of sins. It is 
hard and useless for my opponent to kick against the 
pricks, for the facts are against him. 

His ridiculous and absurd position that the law concern- 
ing baptism was not fully enacted for ten years after the 
apostles, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, began their 
ministry is the merest subterfuge in support of a hopeless 
cause. Cornelius and family had to be baptized for the 
remission of sins, as did those on Pentecost, when the gos- 
pel, with its rich provisions, was first promulgated. My 
friend yields his whole contention relative to the way in 
which Cornelius and his house were saved, by one single 
remark — viz., " cleansing their hearts by faith." If, as he 
first claimed, they were regenerated, washed, and made 
anew by the baptism of the Holy Spirit, then it could not 
have been done " by faith." Hence the expression, " bare 



284 Why the Baptist Name. 

them witness" (Acts 15: 7-9), can have no reference to 
their salvation further than being an evidence to the Jews 
that these Gentiles had a right to the gospel. 

The Doctor seems not to know the difference between the 
gift of the Spirit and the baptism of the Spirit. No one 
received the gift of the Spirit until after baptism. (Acts 
2: 38.) What Cornelius and his house received was the 
baptism of the Holy Spirit, which was miraculous, en- 
abling them to speak in different languages insomuch that 
the Jews were amazed and marveled. Was any one 
amazed and did any one marvel when Dr. Lofton was bap- 
tized in the Holy Spirit? If such occurrences were com- 
mon and attended every conversion, how does my friend 
account for the Jews' becoming " amazed," and why did 
they "marvel" on this occasion? Ah, let him explain if 
he can. He makes nonsense out of the commission (Mark 
16: 16) by saying that "he that believeth and is baptized 
shall be saved " " can only mean that the ' saved,' the dis- 
ciple having been ' made,' not by baptism, but by faith, 
must be baptized to declare and symbolize the fact, and so 
saved." Kind reader, can you not see that a theory which 
requires such tampering with the plain statement of the 
commission is compelled to be wrong? Why not let it stand 
just as the Son of God left it, and not try to make it 
read : " He that believeth is saved, and should be baptized 
to symbolize that salvation." That is exactly what Dr. 
Lofton is here doing to this inspired document. Better 
hands off, my brother, for Jesus Christ spoke those words. 



MR. SMITH'S REVIEW OF DR. LOFTON'S 
REPLY ON PAGES 144-154. 



My opponent holds that the sinner, " dead in trespasses 
and sins," is quickened or made alive by the " direct " 
work of the Holy Spirit. If this be true, then regeneration 
is a physical change produced by the physical power of the 
Holy Spirit. His interpretation of "dead in sin" makes 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 285 

the use of " moral power " by the Spirit out of the ques- 
tion, because the Spirit can only exert " moral power " 
through his word. The conversion of a sinner, with him, 
is as much a physical work as was that of raising Lazarus 
from the grave or that of creating the universe. If " dead 
in trespasses and sins " means that the one so dead can- 
not hear and believe God's word without first being made 
alive by the direct work of the Spirit, why is not con- 
version as much divorced from moral power as was the 
formation of the earth by the Spirit moving upon the 
face of the waters? I now affirm that the Baptist theory 
of regeneration, or conversion, is wholly physical, and ab- 
solutely destitute of moral power. Mr. Jeter, who was 
one of the greatest exponents of Baptist doctrine, and 
who was selected by his brethren to expose " Campbellism," 
says: 

I shall now proceed to show that, in the case of dying 
infants and idiots, regeneration takes place by the agency 
of the Spirit, without the word." (" Campbellism Re- 
examined," page 49.) 

If this is not physical regeneration, then will not the 
renewal of the earth be accomplished by a physical process. 
Now, unless the Doctor advocates two kinds of regenera- 
tion pertaining to the salvation of the soul, one for the 
" dying infants and idiots " and the other for the sinner 
" dead in trespasses and sins," then is the latter purely 
physical. And since the condition in which he places the 
sinner renders him unable to hear, believe, repent, and 
obey the gospel until quickened into spiritual being by 
the direct work of the Spirit, how can there be any differ- 
ence between the regeneration of an unconscious infant 
and a " dead " sinner? The Doctor says that " dead in 
trespasses and sins " means " the moral inability of the 
sinner to believe and obey God, without the direct power of 
the Holy Spirit to quicken or make alive in Christ by the 
grace of God." The truth is, regeneration is accomplished 
by a moral power; and as the Holy Spirit exerts moral 
power only through or by his word, the word contains the 
only power which the Spirit exerts in the regeneration of 



286 Why the Baptist Name. 

man. To deny this is to repudiate the power attributed 
to God's word throughout the Bible. 

The Doctor says: "How the Spirit operates upon the 
soul by means of his word, I do not know." I beg to re- 
mind him that that is not the issue. His affirmation is 
that the Spirit operates, or exerts an influence in addition 
to that resident in the word. I have shown that there is 
nothing in the entire context of Acts 16: 14 to indicate in 
any way whatever that the Lord used any means other 
than his word to open Lydia's heart. The Doctor's effort 
to make the language, " to give heed unto the things which 
were spoken by Paul," refer to Lydia's understanding 
Paul's message, does violence to the word of God. To 
give heed, here, is used in the sense of attending to the 
words which Paul spoke — that is, do what the words re- 
quired. Lydia was already a believer in, and a devout 
worshiper of, God, hence did not need the Doctor's " direct " 
work of the Spirit to quicken her into life. What she 
needed was information concerning Christ and to obey 
him in baptism. In order to get out of the difficulty in 
which he finds himself with reference to Lydia's case, he 
has to class that sincere and devout worshiper of God, as 
well as the pious Cornelius, with the hypocritical Pharisees! 
Shame on Brother Lofton for such conduct! It only be- 
trays the weakness of his cause, which he should abandon 
at once. He tries to maintain his " direct " operation of 
the Spirit theory by saying that " one of the fruits of the 
Spirit is faith." (Gal. 5: 22.) Had he consulted the Re- 
vised text, he would not have been guilty of this blunder, 
for the correct reading is " faithfulness," which means 
fidelity to Christian duty. (Gal. 5: 22.) Of course, in- 
directly — that is, through the word — faith is the product 
of the Spirit, but otherwise it is not. 

He comes to the salvation of Noah (1 Pet. 3: 20, 21) and 
admits that we are saved by baptism, but says " it is a 
figurative salvation!" Note, he has Noah actually saved 
from the destruction of the flood before there was any 
flood, for not until after he entered the ark did the flood 
begin. This he is compelled to do in order to have the 
sinner saved before baptism; but the word of God plainly 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 287 

says that Noah and his family " were saved through water" 
without the Doctor's figure. He says they were saved the 
moment they entered the ark, and I will ask him: Did 
faith alone put them in the ark? Since he makes the 
ark a type of Christ, and " faith alone " did not put them 
in the ark, what becomes of his doctrine that faith alone 
puts a man in Christ? The facts are, Noah's salvation was 
not complete until the ark, in which he and his family 
were, was landed upon the summit of Ararat. The record 
says: "And the waters increased, and bore up the ark, and 
it was lifted up above the earth." (Gen. 7: 17.) Can any 
one reach the conclusion from this statement that Noah 
and family would have been saved if the waters had not 
lifted the ark from the earth? It was, then, through the 
instrumentality of both the ark and water that these eight 
souls were saved from physical death — typical of the sinner 
being saved from his past sins through the instrumentality 
of faith and baptism. " He that believeth and is baptized 
shall be saved." (Mark 16: 16.) 

The Doctor seems to have forgotten that in his tract he 
said that John was called " the Baptist " because he bap- 
tized people, else he would not claim he could scripturally 
be called the " repentance " preacher because he preached 
repentance. 

The selection of one by vote to fill the place vacated by 
Judas, and deacons to wait upon tables, is by no means 
parallel with the Baptist churches voting on candidates 
for baptism and membership. Hence " the principle of 
election " here established does not fit my friend's practice. 

Notwithstanding the fact that Paul says " there is one 
faith" (Eph. 4: 5), Dr. Lofton has two — viz., "historical" 
faith and " saving " faith. Now the simple truth is, faith 
is always the same in kind, but differs in degree, and the 
degree of faith necessary to the " saving of the soul " is 
that degree which leads man to obey Christ. "He became 
unto all them that ooey him the author of eternal salva- 
tion." (Heb. 5: 9.) He quotes, "He that believeth on the 
Son hath everlasting life;" and Christ tells us when we 
have life by that faith — viz., when it leads us to ooey him, 
and baptism is a part of that obedience. 



288 Why the Baptist Name. 

The second chapter of James is a thorn in my opponent's 
flesh, because it so plainly and completely destroys his 
doctrine of justification by " faith alone." The matter 
stands thus: "We are justified by faith only." (Dr. Lof- 
ton.) "Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not 
by faith only." (James.) Moreover, James (2: 23) says 
Abraham's faith was reckoned unto him for righteous- 
ness when he offered Isaac. Hence the effort of my oppo- 
nent to exclude acts of obedience, or works, from the faith 
that justifies the sinner is squarely contradicted by an in- 
spired apostle. Brother Lofton's failure to distinguish be- 
tween works of righteousness which men may do inde- 
pendent of Christ, and those overt acts of obedience en- 
joined in the gospel, is the cause of all his trouble. 

I have shown that my friend's doctrine has people saved 
apart from Christ in that he has them saved before bap- 
tism, because we are baptized into the body of Christ (1 
Cor. 12: 13), and you cannot separate Christ, the Head, 
from the church, his body. He now says, " The eunuch, 
when he believed and was baptized, belonged to the uni- 
versal church, or body of Christ;" and this he terms 
Christ's " spiritual body." I thank my brother for this 
admission, in which he has yielded the whole contest, for 
certainly he will not contend that pardon or remission can 
be had out of Christ's " spiritual body," into which he says 
the eunuch was baptized. If the "natural man" (1 Cor. 
2: 14) is the alien sinner, and he cannot receive the things 
of the Spirit, how is he to be converted? The " natural 
man " of this passage is the " uninspired man." No one 
is ever regarded as a " Baptist " by even Baptist preachers 
until baptized, and this fact is proof positive that without 
baptism one cannot become a " Baptist." Why should bap- 
tism, one act of the creature, render the blood of Christ 
" of none effect " any more than faith, another act of the 
creature? He cannot explain such an inconsistency. He 
says the " Campbellites " are divided among themselves. 
Well, that does not prove the "Baptists" to be scriptural; 
and, besides this, I am no more defending a " Campbellite " 
(as the Doctor calls them) who departs from the teaching 
of the New Testament than I am a Baptist. 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 289 

MR. SMITH'S REVIEW OF DR. LOFTON'S 
REPLY ON PAGES 183-194. 

My friend contends that the fact of " Baptistees " not 
being translated is due to the guardianship of divine provi- 
dence! The guardianship thrown around this word, as 
well as " baptizo," which prevented their translation into 
English, cannot be charged up to divine providence, but is 
due to the love of human traditions in religion. The Doc- 
tor's oapt no more means dipt than does " immerse," and 
his reasoning here is puerile, and simply aids the affusion- 
ist by contending for an anglicized word. With all the 
points of resemblance between the baptism administered 
by John and that Christ put in the commission (Matt. 28: 
19, 20), he cannot make them one and the same, because 
the baptism of the commission is into the names of the 
Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which signify rela- 
tions not secured by John's baptism. I quoted from Armi- 
tage to show that he sustained me in the position that 
" Baptist " was an " official title," and not a religious 
name to be handed down to the children of God. If Armi- 
tage contends for the denominational name of " Baptist," 
it only shows how a great man allows himself, influenced 
by a partisan spirit, to build again the temple of error he 
once destroyed. How could John's baptism be " Christian 
baptism," when he did not baptize in the name nor into 
the name of Christ? I still insist that there were children 
of God through the patriarchal and Jewish dispensations, 
but they were not Christians. I have two reasons for so 
saying. (1) No one could be a Christian without being 
married to Christ, from which the name " Christian " is 
derived; and the Scriptures plainly state that Christ had 
to die before such marriage could take place. (See Rom. 
7: 4.) (2) The Scriptures plainly state that the disciples 
were called "Christians" first in Antioch. (Acts 11: 26.) 
The patriarchs were saints because of their righteous char- 
acters, but not Christians because of a relation which they 
did not, and in the providence and wisdom of God they 
could not, sustain before the gospel reign. The name 
19 



290 Why the Baptist Name. 

" Christian," within itself, does not signify the moral or 
righteous character of the one so called, for that is in- 
volved in the word " saint," which means one sanctified, 
or a holy person. Of course no one is worthy of the name 
" Christian '•' who is not a saint, but the name is a " proper " 
name, denoting our marriage to Christ. 

My opponent admits that the Scriptures nowhere speak 
of " the Baptist Church." Then why does he so speak of 
the institution Christ said " upon this rock I will build? " 
Christ calls it " my church," hence it is proper to call it 
" Christ's church " or " the church of Christ," is it not? 
With reference to the church in its congregational form, 
they are called "churches of Christ" (Rom. 16: 16), but 
never " Baptist " churches. Brother Lofton is constantly 
and unconsciously surrendering his contention. He ad- 
mits that circumstances could arise when the " use of the 
name as a denominational distinction " could be dispensed 
with, and, if used at all, " would be simply to indicate the 
typic or prototypic character " of John. Now he has told 
us that the name " Baptist " grew out of and originated 
from the fundamental principles of John's doctrine to which 
Baptists hold. How, then, can the name " Baptist " have 
any relation, typically or otherwise, to John's character? 
Furthermore, if the name is involved in the " doctrine " 
John taught, then how could it be used as a denominational 
name, and how could it be dispensed with without giving 
up John's doctrine? The Doctor is evidently tangled in 
his argument. If the church or kingdom was established 
before the resurrection of Christ, then was it a body with- 
out a Head, or a kingdom without a King. He was hot 
Head of the church until he acquired preeminence in all 
things, and this was not done until he was born from the 
dead. (Col. 1: 18.) He was not King until crowned and 
seated upon his throne, and this did not occur until after 
his resurrection. (Acts 2: 36; Heb. 1: 3.) 

Brother Lofton says: "How does he know that the Holy 
Spirit did not work with the word in order to the con- 
version of these people? And how does he know that they 
related no experience, or made no confession? " He for- 
gets that he is obligated to show from the voice of Scrip- 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 291 

ture, and not from the silence of Scripture, that the Holy 
Spirit operated directly in the conversion of those on 
Pentecost, and that they were required to relate an ex- 
perience before baptism. I have shown that the gospel 
was preached, and as a result people believed and were 
convicted of sin, and it devolves upon my opponent to 
show from the record that any other power was present. 
He cannot do it, hence his questions. Suppose " it cannot 
be shown that all the details of that occasion were not 
given in the record," how does he know that one of the 
details not given was the direct operation of the Spirit? 
Better stick to the record, my brother, and not assume 
where the record is silent. 

The Doctor says: " I agree that a body should derive its 
name from its head." Then, why should my opponent in- 
sist upon a name descriptive of a name derived from the 
head of the body? Why say " Baptist church of Christ," 
or " Baptist Christian? " Yes, the New Testament uses a 
variety of designations of the church, but not a single one 
of these designations is the name "Baptist." He says: 
" We do not refuse to wear, as the bride of Christ, our 
Husband's name." No, but you dishonor your Husband by 
wearing the name of his servant. Even if I should say 
" Christian church," referring to the body of Christ, I 
would be using the name of Christ to designate his church, 
for you can neither speak nor write the name " Christian " 
without calling or using the name " Christ." This is not 
true in saying " Baptist Church." If I were to admit that 
covenanted Israel was referred to by the name of "Jacob," 
that would not help my friend's cause, for God's people 
were never referred to as "Baptists;" hence the name 
"Jacob " furnishes him no precedent for his " Baptist " 
name. 

The Doctor has agreed with me that the body of Christ 
includes all of God's children on the earth, and yet he has 
John the Baptist in the kingdom and out of the church, 
which is Christ's body! The church, or body of Christ, 
and the kingdom, are one and the same. One includes all 
or as much as the other, and in fact it is the same in- 
stitution under different names designating different fea- 



292 Why the Baptist Name. 

tures. The kingdom was not established in John's time. 
(See Luke 19: 11; Mark 9: 1; Luke 17: 20; 21: 31; 22: 29; 
Acts 1: 6.) People could only press into the kingdom in 
John's day by accepting the " gospel of the kingdom," 
which meant nothing more than that the kingdom is "at 
hand," or in the near future. 

Brother Lofton has said that I misrepresented him in 
saying that he claimed John was called a " Baptist " be- 
fore baptizing any one. My opponent was too hasty in 
that statement, as the following from his pen will show: 
" In John's case the name ' Baptist ' was not due to the 
fact of having been baptized himself, for God himself made 
John a Baptist and so called him without baptism in order 
to begin baptism." (Page 192.) In his confusion, to get 
away from a serious difficulty, my brother let his pen slip at 
this point. I asked : If people are called " Baptists " because 
they are baptized to symbolize a death, burial, and resur- 
rection gospel, how does my friend account for John's be- 
ing called a " Baptist," who was never himself baptized? 
In his tract he says, "John was called a ' Baptist ' because 
he baptized people," and now he says God made him a Bap- 
tist and so called him without baptism in order to begin 
baptism! Whither will he flee next? 

With reference to the " new name " of Isa. 62 : 2, I refer 
the reader to my first argument on page 159. I now make 
the following remarks: (1) Is it not most singular indeed 
that Dr. Lofton prefers the name " Baptist," by which the 
followers of Christ were never called, to that of " Chris- 
tian," by which, under the approbation of the apostles, 
they were called at least twice, according to his own ad- 
mission? (2) The fact that they were not called "Chris- 
tians" for many years after the apostles began their min- 
istry, instead of supporting my friend's contention that 
they were so called in derision, operates against it. Does 
it stand to reason that the enemies of Christ would go so 
long in the face of people's being baptized into the name 
of Christ, and that name on the lips of the world, without 
stigmatizing the disciples as " Christians," if the name 
was given in derision? They were called " Christians " in 
honor of Christ, and so called by divine appointment. 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 293 

MR. SMITH'S REVIEW OF DR. LOFTON'S 
REPLY ON PAGES 223-233. 

I have raised no objection to the name " Baptist " as a 
title, provided it is applied to one who fills the office which 
gave rise to it — viz., that of a baptizer. My contention is 
against the denominational use of this name as applied 
to the members of the Doctor's church who do not bap- 
tize. My opponent claims as Baptists, as I have shown, 
people who neither taught nor practiced the Baptist doc- 
trine. He says: " Surely for twenty centuries Christ has 
somewhere had a true and visible church on earth." If 
he means by this that this " visible " church as he calls it 
was the "Baptist" Church, why has he not been able to 
trace it by such distinct marks of identification as to 
make out his case? Dr. Whitsitt found the "Baptists" 
sprinkling for baptism, and this spoils my brother's beau- 
tiful theory of a " Baptist " Church all through these 
twenty centuries. He admits that in New Testament times 
the disciples were one in faith and practice, and my con- 
tention is that it ought so to be now, and that his sectarian 
name " Baptist " is helping to perpetuate division. I can- 
not see how the church can exist in any other than a 
" spiritual sense," whether as the entire body or the local 
congregation. 

The Doctor assigns me a position relative to whom the 
church of God, or church of Christ, includes, and says: 
" If I misunderstand him upon this point, I ask that he 
will correct me." The Scriptures teach that the body is 
one, made up of many members; or, "all the members of 
the body, being many, are one body." (1 Cor. 12: 12.) We 
become members of this " one body " by being baptized 
into it. (1 Cor. 12: 13.) Hence, wherever a person may 
be found who was baptized to enter this one body, and 
not to enter some religious denomination, that individual 
is a part of the body of Christ. Many such are scattered 
among the denominations of earth, who should come out 
of sectism. I am a member of the body of Christ which 
includes all who have believed and been baptized, and I 



294 Why the Baptist Name. 

worship with any local congregation that worships as did 
those revealed in the New Testament. I repeat, any reli- 
gious institution larger than a local congregation and yet 
smaller than the entire church or body of Christ, which in- 
cludes all of God's children on earth, is an unauthorized 
body. Such an institution is the " Baptist " Church, as 
their own statistics show. In their recent convention in 
Oklahoma City, Dr. Lansing Burrows, Statistical Secretary, 
reported 6,515,878 Baptists in the world. Unless my oppo- 
nent claims this religious body is the body of Christ, then 
it is smaller than the body of Christ, and larger than a 
local congregation. I defy him to find anything like it 
revealed in the word of God. I said, in substance, that 
disciples in a given community were required to assemble 
to eat the Lord's Supper; but where there were disciples, 
few or many, without a local organization, they had a per- 
fect right to commune, and that the Supper was not con- 
fined to an organized congregation. There were, as I have 
shown, unorganized churches (Acts 14: 23; Tit. 1: 15), 
and this fact upsets my friend's theory. 

The Doctor has had two long trials to meet my argu- 
ment in which I showed that he takes the matter of 
salvation out of the " realm of faith," where God's word 
puts it, and transfers it over into the realm of absolute 
knowledge. This he does in his " experience of grace," 
as he calls it, in which he has an inward feeling that his 
sins are pardoned. Now, unless an " inward feeling " is 
the evidence of the divine Sonship of Christ, how can such 
" feeling " be an evidence of the forgiveness of sins? If 
he cannot know that Christ exists only by faith, how can 
he know in the absolute sense that Christ has forgiven 
his sins? I repeat, his doctrine destroys the gospel order 
of salvation by faith, and blasts the Christian's hope; for 
hope is based upon faith, and not knowledge. Nothing 
that takes place in man can be an evidence of pardon, for 
that evidence can only exist in faith in the promise of 
God. He says that I failed to say " how God reveals the 
fact of pardon" to us, but in this he is mistaken. Jesus 
Christ says: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be 
saved." (Mark 16: 16.) I knew and was conscious when 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 295 

I believed (repentance included) and was baptized, and 
my faith in the promise of Christ, who cannot lie, was 
my solid evidence of pardon and ground of rejoicing. As 
the Spirit delivered the message from Christ, I have the 
Spirit witnessing with my spirit that my sins are for- 
given; for he says that whoever does what he requires is 
a child of God, and my spirit tells me I did it. 

My friend is not uniform in his position on the work of 
the Holy Spirit, for at one time he has the Spirit working 
through his word, and at another time working with his 
word. I have charged that the Baptist theory of conver- 
sion is wholly a physical process, and my friend's own ad- 
mission sustains me. Hear him: 

The conversion of a sinner from a state of nature to a 
state of grace is the greatest miracle of revelation. " Born 
from above," " born of God," " renewing of the Holy Spirit " 
— these are terms implying spiritual death and revolution 
in the life principle and moral relations of the sinner, 
through divine agency and energy, not predicable alone 
of verbal instrumentality and specifically assigned to God 
through the Spirit. 

Indeed, such a conversion is not predicable of verbal 
instrumentality alone or otherwise, but is purely physical 
from start to finish. When was a thing created by miracle 
active in its own creation? With my opponent, in the re- 
creation of man, he is as passive as was Adam in his 
creation, and the work is as physical in one as in the 
other. The Scriptures represent the sinner as an active 
agent in his conversion — " Repent ye therefore, and turn 
again, that your sins may be blotted out" (Acts 3: 19) — 
and this fact destroys my friend's doctrine of " miraculous " 
conversion. 

I did not say the Spirit was not compared to the wind, 
but that " conversion " was not so compared. 

My opponent introduced John 6: 44 to prove that sinners 
must be operated upon by the " direct " power of the 
Holy Spirit before they could come to Christ, but I showed, 
by the best Greek writers, that his theory was not to be 
found in the word " draw," upon which he relied. He now 
fishes the word " given " out of verse 65, and tries, by the 
use of this word, to make out his case. But this does not 



296 Why the Baptist Name. 

help his cause, unless he could prove that God cannot or 
does not give sinners power to come to Christ in any other 
than a " direct " or " miraculous " way. It is true that no 
man can eat bread unless it be given him of God, but this 
does not imply that either the bread or the power to eat is 
directly given. Christ plainly states the reason they were 
not able to come — viz., lack of faith (John 6: 64); and 
as faith is that which enables sinners to come to Christ, if 
we can ascertain how God gives sinners faith, we will 
then know how he gives them power to come to Christ. 
The Scriptures teach that God gives faith through the in- 
strumentality of his word. (John 20: 30, 31; Luke 8: 
12; Acts 15: 7; Rom. 10: 17.) The Doctor admits that the 
sinner has the power to resist God's power to " draw " 
him, and this is an admission that God uses no arbitrary 
means in drawing sinners to Christ. He refers to Acts 7: 
51, where Stephen charges the Jews with resisting the 
Holy Spirit as did their fathers; but this passage is fatal 
to his cause. Let him turn to Neh. 9: 30, and see exactly 
how " the fathers " rejected the Spirit, and this will show 
him how those to whom Stephen spoke resisted the Holy 
Spirit: "Yet many years didst thou bear with them, and 
testifiedst against them by thy Spirit through thy proph- 
ets: yet would they not give ear." This shows conclusively 
that in resisting the words of the Spirit spoken by the 
prophets they were resisting the Spirit. Likewise, when 
the Jews rejected the words of Stephen, they resisted the 
Holy Spirit's influence to convict and convert them. Nehe- 
miah distinctly affirms that the influence of the Holy 
Spirit was exerted upon the hearts of the " fathers " 
through the prophets, but Dr. Lofton contradicts him by 
saying the Holy Spirit influences man by a " direct " work. 

Neither Campbell nor any other intelligent disciple re- 
pudiates an " experience of grace," but they know to what 
such an experience is due — viz., an abiding faith in the 
promises of God. 

I am glad to note that Brother Lofton is coming to lay 
less stress on feelings as an evidence of pardon, and I in- 
dulge the hope that he will finally assign feelings in re- 
ligion their proper place. 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 297 

MR. SMITH'S REVIEW OF DR. LOFTON'S 
REPLY ON PAGES 259-270. 

I am truly glad to know that Brother Lofton entertains 
a hope of my salvation based upon my " experience of 
grace," and for the same reason he should indulge a like 
hope for all those he terms " Campbellites," because they 
all have the same " experience of grace " growing out of 
their faith in the promise of Christ, who placed salvation 
from past sins after baptism. Our " claims over other peo- 
ple " do not consist in greater sincerity and honesty of 
purpose, nor yet in more general intelligence. We simply 
have better conceptions of the doctrine of " salvation by 
grace," and a better understanding of the nature and sim- 
plicity of the conditions of salvation through which the 
grace of God is appropriated. This advantage is not due 
to any superior wisdom upon our part, but rather to the 
simple and childlike faith we have in the appointments of 
God. 

The Bible speaks of " the law of the Spirit of life " (Rom. 
8: 2), and this "law" is expressed in the words of the 
Spirit, which are said to be " the sword of the Spirit " (Eph. 
6: 17) — yea, more, "sharper than any two-edged sword" 
(Heb. 4: 12). Hence, when the Spirit is said to do any- 
thing in the salvation of man, it is not done " directly " 
and " mysteriously," as the Doctor asserts, but by the 
Spirit's established law, embodied in his word. Therefore, 
when my opponent asserts that the Spirit operates " direct- 
ly " and " mysteriously " through his word, he is darkening 
counsel. For his " mysterious " and " direct " doctrine he 
relies upon John 3:8; but I have shown that, whatever the 
passage teaches, it does not support his contention. To 
make the expression, " so is every one," sustain him, he 
must show that these words relate to the operation of the 
Spirit or the process of the new birth; and if his life de- 
pended on it, he cannot do it. Brother Lofton talks of the 
Spirit breathing through the word as he accompanies the 
word, as if the word of God, called in Scripture a " living 



298 



Why the Baptist Name. 



and incorruptible seed" (1 Pet. 1: 23), were a kind of 
tube or hollow substance, as a megaphone, through which 
the Spirit breathes, not in ideas addressed to man's com- 
prehension, but an unintelligible influence, as wind sweep- 
ing oyer some surface! Such an influence would be purely 
physical and could play no part in conversion, which is a 
moral process from beginning to end. Of course, when 
Campbell was a " Baptist," like my opponent, he failed to 
speak as the oracles of God, and misused the term " Bap- 
tist " by calling John " a Baptist preacher," but he learned 
better and ceased to so pervert the word of God. 

It seems difficult for my friend to grasp the truth re- 
garding the church of God; hence, as a simple illustration 
of the difference between the church revealed in the New 
Testament and denominationalism, attention is called to 
the following diagrams: 






The largest circle represents the church or body of 
Christ over which he is head and concerning which he 
said: "Upon this rock I will build." This includes all of 
God's children on earth, no matter where they may be, 
whether identified with a local congregation of disciples or 
isolated from such. The smallest circle represents a church 
of Christ or congregation of disciples with its bishops and 
deacons (Phil. 1: 1), such as Paul refers to when he says: 
"All the churches of Christ salute you" (Rom. 16: 16). 
The middle circle represents the Baptist Church or any 
other denomination, which is neither the church or body 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 299 

of Christ containing all of God's children on earth nor a 
local congregation of disciples. It is too large to represent 
number two, and too small to represent number one — the 
only representations of the church in the New Testament. 
Simply because the " Baptist " Church or any other de- 
nomination has its organized local congregations does not 
render it any the less a sectarian body, which has no ex- 
istence in the New Testament, for these local Baptist 
churches simply represent the middle circle or a religious 
body larger than a local congregation and yet smaller than 
the entire body of Christ. I refuse absolutely and uncon- 
ditionally to be identified with any religious body other 
than the body of Christ which includes all of God's chil- 
dren and a local congregation of disciples, for whatsoever 
is more or less than this is sin. I have shown that Dr. 
Lofton does not get his denomination from the word of 
God; therefore, if he could have succeeded in proving that 
the name "■ Baptist " could be scripturally applied to a re- 
ligious organization, he would be misusing it. He says the 
Paulicians had " church officers," but that is quite different 
from the " clergy " of the " Baptist " Church, composed of 
" Reverend D.D.'s." 

The Doctor says: "I hold with James that a dead 
faith saves no man; and that the evidence of saving 
faith is confession, baptism, and good works, al- 
though not saved by these at all, but by faith alone." He 
here admits that James is laying down a general principle 
applicable to sinners as well as to saints, and James' state- 
ment on the case ruins my friend's cause, for the apostle 
says faith without obedience is dead. How can a man be 
saved by " faith alone," when James says such faith is 
dead? The Doctor will have to yield his contention or 
hold that man is saved on a dead faith. 

Brother Lofton admits that in all the religious bodies 
through which he claims the " Baptists " came there were 
irregularities not consistent with Baptist doctrine and prac- 
tice, and that these irregular bodies produced the Baptist 
denomination as we now have it. Noble confession! The 
" Baptist " Church, then, owes its origin not to the New 



300 Why the Baptist Name. 

Testament Scriptures, but to the evolution of religious 
bodies practicing irregularities, among which was sprink- 
ling for baptism! 

The Doctor says, in answer to my question, " Where did 
the * Baptists ' get the true and only baptism? " that where 
they did not have it they restored it according to the 
Scriptures, like Israel restored circumcision. Well, now, 
I have abundantly shown that the " Baptist " theory of 
baptism is not that of the New Testament; hence the Doc- 
tor's assertion at this point is nothing short of assump- 
tion. But if a denomination resulting from irregular re- 
ligious bodies could restore baptism, why could not any 
other religious body do the same? But there are two very 
dissimilar features between the body of Israel and the 
" Baptist " Church relative to the restoration of a divine 
ordinance. First, Israel was an unbroken body from its 
organization to the restoration of circumcision; while the 
" Baptist " Church had no existence, organic or otherwise, 
before the sixteenth century. Second, Joshua (5: 2) 
received a direct revelation concerning the restoration of 
circumcision, while the " Baptist " Church received no such 
revelation concerning baptism or anything else. They can- 
not tell when, where, nor how they got their baptism that 
keeps multiplied thousands whom they recognize as God's 
children from their Father's table. 

Once more my friend yields unintentionally the contro- 
versy relative to his denominational name. Hear him: "I 
have said, if all God's people were one in gospel order, 
organism, ordinance, office, and doctrine, there might be 
no use for any name save the church of God or of Christ 
or of locality, or simply ' churches,' as in the New Testa- 
ment." The expression, " as in the New Testament," is a 
confession that the New Testament furnishes names for 
the divine institution revealed in that book, and that these 
names are common to all the body of Christ. Furthermore, 
my opponent by this admission refutes his repeated claim 
that the name " Baptist " was involved in the " funda- 
mental principles of John's doctrine " — viz., repentance and 
faith, added to a "burial and resurrection gospel;" for if 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 301 

it were, the name could never be dispensed with without 
giving up repentance, faith, and baptism. Verily the Doc- 
tor's road is a rough one. Yes, I " insist upon the use of 
sound words," and admit that the word " Baptist " is a 
sound word when scripturally applied — viz., to one who bap- 
tizes — but very unsound in the use to which my friend 
puts it. 

I wish to assure my brother that I have not intended 
one single word in this discussion as a " slur " at the faith 
and practice of " Baptists;" for however much I may differ 
from them, I recognize them in sincerity and honesty of 
purpose on equality with myself. 

When my opponent stated that " religious liberty " con- 
sisted in " worshiping God according to conscience," I un- 
derstood him to make conscience the rule by which to 
worship God; but since he disavows such doctrine, I take 
pleasure in accepting his explanation. It is evident from 
Baptist history itself that the religious denomination which 
11 adopted," according to my opponent, " the general de- 
nominational name of Baptist as we now have it," did not 
get their baptism from any body of believers coming 
through the centuries practicing immersion exclusively, 
and this fact blasts their claim to the " only true " bap- 
tism — no matter if immersion was practiced here and there 
during those centuries. If " Baptists and Baptist history 
have been the spontaneous and constant result of gospel 
1 seed,' then the seed must have degenerated in fruitage from 
its original propagation; for gospel seed in New Testament 
times made no such people as " Baptists," but Christians 
only. 

Brother Lofton has the unfortunate habit of reading 
into the text things which antagonize the word of God. 
Note the following: " In giving Cornelius and his house 
the Holy Spirit, God bore them witness of their faith." 
Now the record says no such thing. The " witness " here 
was not to Cornelius and his house, but to the Jews that 
the Gentiles had a right to the gospel. The very challenge 
of Peter, " Can any man forbid the water, that these should 
not be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as well 



302 Why the Baptist Name. 

as we? " proves this beyond a doubt. This miraculous 
demonstration could be no " witness " to Cornelius and his 
house that they believed, and neither was it an evidence 
from God that they were saved — for all this could have 
occurred without sending for Peter, who was to tell them 
words whereby they should be saved. (Acts 11: 14.) 
Furthermore, the Doctor's theory sets aside the commis- 
sion: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." 
My friend says " there cannot be two salvations." No, but 
we are said to be saved by different things, one of which is 
baptism, and he cannot toss it aside as an Orientalism 
merely signifying what has gone before. He insists that 
the very moment one believes on Christ (the internal act 
with no outward expression in baptism), he is saved, but 
the Scriptures are against him. " Nevertheless even of the 
rulers many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees 
they did not confess it, lest they should be put out of the 
synagogue: for they loved the glory that is of men more 
than the glory that is of God." (John 12: 42, 43.) It is 
here emphatically stated that many believed on him, and 
yet the Doctor will hardly affirm that they were saved; but 
this he must do, or abandon the doctrine of " justification 
by faith alone." He may seek to escape his trouble by 
claiming that this was simply what he terms "historic" 
faith and not " saving " faith. But I once more remind the 
reader that the word of God makes no such distinction in 
faith, and that the record says they believed on him, and 
the reason they were not saved was that they refused to 
confess him, which would have been an outward expression 
of an inward faith. My friend seeks to lessen the cyclonic 
force of James' statement that " faith apart from works is 
dead " by claiming this applies to Christians and not alien 
sinners. But, unfortunately for him, James illustrates the 
principle by Rahab. Who was she at the time she " re- 
ceived the messengers and sent them out another way? " 
A resident of Jericho, and a bad woman up to that time, 
and this upsets all the Doctor's argument for justification 
upon the ground of " faith alone." What acts of Christian 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 303 

service was the harlot of Jericho performing at the time of 
her justification? Let my brother point them out if he 
can, or admit that " faith alone," anywhere and at any 
time, before one becomes a child of God or afterwards, is 
dead, and therefore cannot save a soul. 

My brother says : " In the deliverance of the Hebrews 
the Holy Spirit was typified by the 'burning bush;' and 
throughout all the steps leading up to emancipation the 
Spirit was ever present." How does he know that the 
burning bush typified the Holy Spirit? And if he could show 
that to be true and that " the Spirit was ever present," what 
then? The people were moved by faith in Moses as the 
sent of God, and the " direct " work of the Spirit was not 
wrought upon the Israelites, but upon the Egyptians and 
their cattle and the Red Sea — all of which was purely 
physical. The children of Israel were not saved from 
Egyptian bondage until they were baptized unto (Greek 
into) Moses in the cloud and in the sea. (1 Cor. 10: 1, 2.) 
Moses told them while standing near the sea crying: 
"Fear ye not, stand still, and see the salvation of Jehovah, 
which he will work for you to-day." (Ex. 14: 13.) The 
Lord told them to "go forward." (Verses 15, 16). After 
they passed over the sea, it is said : " Thus Jehovah saved 
Israel that day out of the hand of the Egyptians." (Verse 
30.) Now the sinner is freed from the bondage of sin 
when he is baptized into Christ. "He that believeth and 
is baptized shall be saved." (Mark 16: 16.) But in the 
face of the plain declaration that the Hebrews were not 
saved until they passed over the sea, Brother Lofton says: 
" The Hebrews were saved by the blood and perfectly safe 
before their baptism." Surely " the Baptist maxim " is 
hard pressed when forced to thus repudiate the clear decla- 
rations of holy writ! 

I have enjoyed this friendly controversy with Brother 
Lofton regarding our differences, and I believe we both 
have striven to treat each other with Christian courtesy. 
I feel sure that we think none the less of each other be- 



304 Why the Baptist Name. 

cause of this interchange of views, but, on the contrary, 
have been brought into a closer friendship. I now leave 
my part of the work in the hands of the public, and pray 
God to bless and overrule it all to his glory and our eter- 
nal happiness. 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 305 



DR. LOFTON'S FINAL REJOINDER. 

By a misunderstanding of my own, I am restricted to a 
brief reply, and shall not be able to answer my opponent 
in every detail of his last argument, and so will confine 
myself, more specifically, to a general summary of our 
discussion. 

I. The Baptist Name. 

1. As I have shown, it was a name applied to John be- 
cause of his baptism, and was a title of distinction sig- 
nificant of his " preaching in the wilderness of Judea, 
saying, Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand " 
(Matt. 3: 1, 2), involving faith in the coming Messiah 
signified by baptism with reference to the remission of 
sins confessed, requiring reformation of life and " right- 
eousness " of " soul " beforehand, as shown by Josephus 
(Ant. 18, 5, 2) and by Paul (Rom. 10: 10), in which it is 
seen that " with the heart man believeth unto righteous- 
ness" This is fundamentally Baptist doctrine and prac- 
tice as set up by John the Baptist and adopted by Christ 
and his apostles. In following the order, doctrine, and 
practice of John, the Baptists have attained the denomi- 
national title of their prototype as a characteristic dis- 
tinction, without organic conflict with the headship of 
Christ; and the name being a perfectly scriptural and per- 
tinent distinction, it cannot be sectarian or subversive of 
the truth of Christ. 

2. Again, the name " Baptist " is derived from the word 
" baptism," and is symbolic and significant of the " gos- 
pel " based upon the death, burial, and resurrection of 
Christ (1 Cor. 15: 1-5), and of our spiritual death, burial, 
and resurrection in Christ (Rom. 6: 2-5). In accord 
with their name, Baptists are a death, burial, and resur- 
rection people who do not pervert the form, subject, nor 

20 



306 Why the Baptist Name. 

design of the ordinance; and they have ever maintained 
its spiritual import as a declarative symbol and as a 
Christian obligation. The name " Baptist " is perfectly 
synonymous with the name "Christian;" and though all 
Christians' may not be Baptists in name, all true Baptists 
are Christians, not only in name, but in spirit and truth. 

3. The name " Baptist " is the historic appellation of a 
people whose gospel order, doctrine, and practice have 
been traced back to the apostolic age. They were specific- 
ally known as "Anabaptists," sometimes called " Baptists," 
and finally so named as never having symbolized with 
Rome or with her Protestant offspring; and they are the 
only people recognized as having come down through all 
the Christian ages, with any sort of succession, with gos- 
pel order to the present time. They have the sanction of 
God, the seal of martyrdom, the testimony of history, and 
the crown of orthodoxy, evangelicity, and glorious achieve- 
ment accorded by the highest scholarship of this day. 

My opponent alone excludes the Baptist denomination 
from the body of Christ and the kingdom of God. He 
says: "Any religious institution larger than a local 
church and yet smaller than the entire church or body 
of Christ, which includes all of God's children on earth, 
is an unauthorized institution." He means only those 
who are baptized to enter this body are members of it, 
although many are in sectarian institutions, and that 
baptism is necessary to become a member of the body 
of Christ. This is pure Romanism; and his heresy is the 
result of his sacramental baptism and church order, which 
are the hollow medium and repository of salvation 
grounded in the unspiritual doctrine of Pelagianism united 
with the lifeless ritualism of Rome. Campbellism has only 
the form of gospel baptism and of the gospel church. We 
are born into the body of Christ, as into Christ himself, 
by faith symbolized by baptism, and so admitted into the 
local churches. The spiritual body of Christ has always 
existed, and the gates of Hades has never, and can never, 
prevail against it; and the only organic manifestation of 
that body, according to the New Testament pattern, of 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 307 

which we have any historic account as in any way suc- 
ceeding from the apostles, is that of the Baptist churches, 
the witnesses of Christ through all the persecuting ages, 
and here to-day and to stay. 

The Baptist denomination is not a " religious institu- 
tion," but a body of independent churches of gospel faith 
and orde^, without federation and cooperative in the life 
and spread of the kingdom; and they are only a separate 
and independent denomination, so called, by differentiation 
from sects of unscriptural order and organism, or of 
heretical doctrine and practice, some of them posing in 
the very name of Christ only. The Baptists, however, do 
not claim to be the only people of God on earth by reason 
of their organism or their baptism. God's people are made 
by faith before baptism; and it is evident that there are 
millions of true and godly Christians who have erred in 
the form, subject, and design of baptism as well as in the 
order and organism of the visible church. Contrary to 
the circles of my opponent, the Baptists are represented 
by the following circles: 




No body of Christians on earth, whether denominated or 
not, contains all the people of God; and my opponent ad- 
mits that some of the people of God are in other sects 
besides his own, or otherwise isolated, which destroys his 
argument. 

My opponent says that I claim as Baptists people who 
neither taught nor practiced Baptist doctrine. He is cer- 
tainly mistaken; and if he has read Dr. Armitage's "His- 



308 Why the Baptist Name. 

tory of the Baptists," which he has tried to cite so often 
against me in this discussion, he would see the track in 
blood of the Baptists through the centuries. Such people 
as the Paulicians, the Petrobrussians, and the Waldensians 
of earlier times, the Anabaptists of the sixteenth century, 
with others before and up to the seventeenth century, he 
would have seen a people teaching and practicing Baptist 
doctrine. So of the first centuries in England, and during 
the period of the Lollards and Wycliffites, and down to the 
period of the English Anabaptists or Baptists, who finally 
restored all things and perfected their order which had 
been so often broken and irregular through the fiery per- 
secutions of Antichrist. Francis Cornwell, one of the " re- 
storers," puts it succinctly when he said, in 1645: "The 
Nationall churches have trodden the holy citie of believers 
in Jesus Christ dipt under foot, neere 42 months; which 
reconing a day for a year, may amount to neer 1260 years. 
(Rev. 11: 2.)" (See my "English Baptist Reformation," 
page 183.) This was the position of the Baptists of the 
seventeenth century in England — namely, that the " holy 
city of believers in Jesus Christ dipt," that is, Baptist 
churches, had now come out of the " wilderness " period of 
1260 years, and, like Israel of old, as they put it, had re- 
stored their ancient rite and perfected their order. They 
had always been regarded as the " dipt " churches or the 
churches of Christ, as much so at any period as the 
" seven churches of Asia," which were churches of Christ, 
and at no time as irregular and perverted in doctrine and 
practice. They were always evangelically pure in doctrine. 
I did say that if all Christians should unite upon the 
gospel, there might be no use for the Baptist name — that 
is, as a denominational distinction; but the fundamental 
reason of the name, its symbolic and characteristic signifi- 
cance, its historic importance, might not be lost to the 
people of God thus following the original order of the gos- 
pel. Christian union upon the gospel implies going back 
to John and the Jordan, to Christ and his apostles. Real- 
ly, if not nominally, all would become Baptists; and it 
would be hard to forget what Dr. Armitage, my opponent's 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 309 

witness, says of John: "Harbinger, preacher, theologian, 
and martyr, next to his Master, we find the great typical 
Baptist of all ages" I am heartily in favor of Christian 
union upon the gospel — John's ideal. 

My brother asks: "Why could not Alexander Campbell 
have originated a church on the basis of the New Testa- 
ment teaching, as well as any one else? " The ground was 
preempted by the Baptists; and, unfortunately for Brother 
Campbell, he went beyond the Baptists and founded a 
church in the shallow doctrines of Pelagianism united with 
the hollow practice of Romanism — pedobaptism excepted. 

II. Baptismal Remission. 

My position in this discussion is that the Scriptures re- 
veal baptism, like the Lord's Supper, as a memorial and 
symbol of salvation by grace, but not a factor in the pro- 
duction of salvation. If baptism is figurative, it is not lit- 
eral; and it cannot be both figurative and literal. If it is 
the symbol, as my opponent admits, of the death, burial, 
and resurrection of Christ, then, as in Rom. 6: 2-5, it is 
the symbol of our spiritual death, burial, and resurrection 
in Christ; and the analogy of death before burial and 
resurrection must be preserved. The Campbellite theory 
of burial in order to death and resurrection is impossible 
of baptism. The sinner must be dead to sin — cleansed by 
the blood, renewed by the Spirit, and so united with Christ 
— before baptism can have any symbolic application to his 
state according to the analogy of death, burial, and resur- 
rection as baptism displays in the state of the Savior. 
Faith does this work and baptism symbolizes and declares 
the fact. 

The pivotal point in this discussion is Acts 10: 43-48; 
and beyond question I have shown that Peter baptized 
Cornelius and his house after they believed and " their 
hearts " were " cleansed by faith." My opponent dodged 
this issue in his first reply and sought to cover my argu- 
ment by an appeal to two or three Baptist scholars touch- 
ing Acts 2: 38. In his second reply he referred to the 
conversion of Cornelius and his house as a kind of phe- 



310 Why the Baptist Name. 

nomenon by which the incident displayed, to the aston- 
ishment of the Jews, that God had received the Gentiles, 
and that the gift of the Holy Spirit did not imply the 
forgiveness of sins of these people upon whom the Spirit 
had fallen. In his last reply he seeks to smother the sub- 
ject again by an appeal to Hackett and Hovey on Acts 2: 
38, and by misrepresenting me as saying that " the law of 
baptism was not fully enacted for ten years " after Pente- 
cost, and in saying in my first reply that Cornelius and 
his house " were regenerated, washed, and made anew by 
the baptism of the Holy Spirit." I said no such things, 
but said that the baptism of Cornelius and his house was 
simply the clear interpretation of Acts 2: 38, and that the 
gift of the Holy Spirit, on that occasion, was clear proof 
of their conversion and forgiveness before their baptism. 
In his second reply he said my case was made out if I 
could show that the baptism of the Holy Spirit, in any 
case, necessarily implied "that sins had been forgiven;" 
and I cited him to Acts 15: 7-9, the very case in point, in 
which Peter says of Cornelius and his house : " Brethren, 
ye know that a good while ago God made choice among 
you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word 
of the gospel and believe. And God, who knoweth the 
heart, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Spirit, 
even as he did unto us; and he made no distinction be- 
tween us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith." 

Now my opponent makes the glaring misrepresentation 
of this passage by saying: " The expression, ' bare them 
witness,' can have no reference to their salvation further 
than being an evidence to the Jews that these Gentiles 
had a right to the gospel." Peter says: "And God, who 
knoweth the heart, bare them witness " — meaning, as clear 
as language can make it, that God, who knew the hearts 
of Cornelius and his house that they had believed, bore 
them witness of the fact by giving them the Holy Spirit; 
and they manifested the fact by speaking with tongues 
and glorifying God! Not only so, but " God cleansed their 
hearts by faith r What faith? The faith with which they 
believed, when God, knowing their hearts, bore them wit- 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 311 

ness by giving them the Holy Spirit. Therefore their 
hearts were cleansed, through God, by faith before the 
Holy Spirit fell upon them, for they believed before the 
Holy Spirit fell upon them, which was God's witness to 
them, and not to the Jews, that they had believed in heart. 
Of course the Jews had external witness of the fact and 
were amazed at the demonstration; but the " witness " of 
the text was to the Gentiles who had believed and whose 
hearts were cleansed by faith beforehand. And all this 
before Peter said a word about baptism! 

My case is made out. I have here broken the backbone 
of Campbellism, which rests for its entire structure upon 
a false baptism — a baptism for the remission of sins and 
for the regeneration of the soul. I am willing to leave my 
argument from Acts 10: 43-48 to the decision of any coun- 
cil of disinterested scholars (see pages 94, 117), with this 
my last statement; and against all the scholarship of the 
world to the contrary based solely on Acts 2: 38, I put 
my argument and defy contradiction. All the arguments 
of my opponent from this and other standpoints go for 
nothing. His oft-repeated text, " He that believeth and is 
baptized" (Mark 16: 16), as I have repeatedly shown, is 
an Orientalism which puts the sign for the thing signified. 
Jesus likewise said (John 6: 54): "He that eateth my 
flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life." So of 
John 3: 5; Acts 2: 38; 22: 16; Rom. 6: 3-5; Gal. 3: 27; 
Bph. 5: 26; Tit. 3: 5; and the like — all are designations 
by the external symbol of the internal change entire, in- 
volved by the remission of sin and the regeneration of the 
soul; while there are scores of literal passages on the 
same subject in which the change is wholly ascribed to 
faith. 

My opponent garbles and perverts Dr. Armitage in every 
passage of history quoted (pages 73, 139, 140), as any can- 
did reader can see who intelligently examines the quota- 
tions; and in the citation of Armitage's quotation from 
Liddon (page 140), he represents Armitage as approving 
the whole quotation, whereas Armitage says: "Although 
Liddon makes baptism the instrument of regeneration, 



312 Why the Baptist Name. 

perhaps no modern writer so lucidly sets forth its relation 
to regeneration as he;" and while Armitage here repu- 
diates Liddon's sacramental theory of baptism, my oppo- 
nent swallows it whole, and attributes it to Armitage! 
Right on page 139 Dr. Armitage says: "The conception of 
divine dignity which Christ threw into baptism led the 
apostolic churches to see the proper place it holds in the 
gospel system, and to shape their polity accordingly. Their 
conduct contrasts strikingly with that modem fanaticism 
which pushes it out of the place given it by Christ, either 
making it the source of moral regeneration, or by depre- 
ciating it as an optional rite or form." Armitage here had, 
respectively, Campbellism and pedobaptism in view. No 
man was ever further from either. Armitage was the 
stanchest of Baptists, and so were Hovey and Hackett, 
neither of whom my opponent understands unless he quotes 
them further without garbling. 

Unquestionably Noah and his family were safe and saved 
in the ark before the ark entered the water; and, by a 
" like figure," we who believe are safe and saved in Christ, 
the Ark of our salvation, before we enter the water. If 
we are saved and safe in Christ, by faith, before water, 
we can only be saved symbolically by water. My opponent 
asks: "Did faith alone put them into the ark?" Paul 
says: "By faith Noah, being warned of God concerning 
things not seen as yet, moved with godly fear, prepared 
an ark to the saving of his house" (Heb. 11: 7); and of 
course he entered the ark by faith, which ark, Paul says, 
was " for the saving of his house." Peter simply uses an 
Orientalism by figuratively ascribing the salvation to water 
which belonged to the ark — the sign put, in our case, for 
the thing signified. (See page 147.) 

Most assuredly the Hebrews were saved in the land of 
Egypt when the passover blood was sprinkled upon the 
door posts and lintels of their houses and when they had 
eaten the passover lamb. The blood was not simply shed 
and the lamb slain typical of Christ's atonement, but the 
blood was applied and the flesh appropriated, typical of 
justification and the new life by faith in Christ; and they 
were under the leadership of Moses, the type of Christ, 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 313 

and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit symbolized by 
the pillar of fire all the way to their Red Sea baptism. 
They were regarded as out of Egypt when encamped in 
the wilderness by the sea (Ex. 14: 12); and when they 
were baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea, it 
signified their union with, and submission to, Moses as 
their leader and lawgiver under God — typical of our bap- 
tism unto Christ. Their baptism was the declaration of 
their salvation already complete, but not symbolized and 
solemnized until baptism; but they were perfectly saved 
and safe from the application of the blood to the baptism 
itself; and nothing could be a clearer illustration of the 
Baptist maxim: " Blood before water, Christ before church, 
and the Holy Spirit, with the word, before all, in all, and 
through all." (See page 269.) The baptism of Israel in 
the cloud and in the sea was the type of a blood-redeemed, 
Spirit-guided, and Christ-healed people, symbolizing their 
salvation, already complete, and their subordination to 
Christ, already their Head. 

My opponent tries hard to get around Saul's conversion 
or salvation before his baptism; and he now assumes that 
Ananias, who laid his hands upon Saul, could only restore 
Saul's sight, but not impart the Holy Spirit because not 
an apostle! Ananias was specially appointed of God for 
the purpose; and when he came to Saul, he laid his hands 
upon him and said: "Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, 
who appeared unto thee in the way which thou earnest, 
hath sent me, that thou mayest receive thy sight and be 
filled with the Holy Spirit." (Acts 9: 17.) Ananias says 
that this was his business — namely, to lay hands on Saul 
that he might receive sight and be filled with the Holy 
Spirit; and if Saul was not pardoned until his baptism, 
then Ananias baptized an unpardoned sinner full of the 
Holy Spirit! What sort of a religion is Campbellism, any- 
how? (See page 115.) 

My opponent asks : " Will Dr. Lofton say that baptism 
is not a part of the gospel?" As a part of the system of 
religious truth which we technically call the " gospel," bap- 
tism is a part; but it is no part of the gospel logically de- 
fined as the "good news" of salvation. Paul (1 Cor. 15: 



314 Why the Baptist Name. 

1-4) comprehends the " gospel " by which we are " saved " 
in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ as "re- 
ceived " by faith, " except ye believed in vain," without any 
reference to baptism whatever. As I have abundantly 
shown, baptism symbolizes the facts of the gospel, but has 
no part in producing those facts, and, like the Lord's Sup- 
per, church organism, officers, administration, and other 
like externals, is only an adjunct of the gospel, or " glad 
tidings " of salvation. 

III. Work of the Holy Spirit. 

I come now to the direct operation of the Spirit, through 
the word, in the conviction, quickening, and conversion of 
the sinner, ridiculed by my opponent; but God says: "Not 
by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit." (Zech. 4: 6.) 
The Spirit is the author of life, as in nature (Rom. 8: 11), 
so in grace (John 16: 8; Eph. 2: 15). Christ was indebted 
to the Spirit for his power to heal, cast out devils, raise 
the dead, and transform the soul, at his word, in response 
to the faith of those " made whole," whose " sins " were 
"forgiven." (Matt. 9: 5; 9: 20; Luke 7: 48-50.) Sin was 
represented by blindness, deafness, paralysis, leprosy, in- 
sanity, death; and with the word of Jesus it took the same 
power to heal the spiritual as the physical. " Thy sins be 
forgiven thee," " Arise and walk," were but counterparts 
of the same miracle by which both soul and body were 
healed. 

As I have repeatedly shown, Ezek. 37: 1-14 illustrates 
the efficiency of the Spirit, through the word, organizing 
Israel's dry bones into bodies and breathing life into those 
dead bodies; and John 3: 8 presents precisely the same 
process spiritually in the " new birth " of the dead soul 
awakened to hear the " voice " and quickened through the 
vitalizing breath of the Holy Spirit. The word is planted 
in the mind of the sinner by Paul and watered by Apollos, 
but God must give the increase — make the seed grow. (1 
Cor. 3: 6-8.) God must open Lydia's heart to hear Paul 
(Acts 16: 14), just as he woke the ear of Isaiah to hear 
(Isa. 50: 4), or inclined the heart of David to his statutes 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 315 

(Ps. 119: 36). The word is mediate and instrumental in 
regeneration, but the Spirit is immediate and efficient in 
that work which changes the governing disposition of the 
soul, and brings character and life into line with divine 
holiness. 

Hence the expressions, "born of God" (John 1: 13), 
"born of the Spirit" (John 3: 8), "brought forth [begot- 
ten] by his own will" (James 1: 18), "begotten again of 
incorruptible seed" (1 Pet. 1: 23), "a new creature [cre- 
ation]" (2 Cor. 5: 17), "created in Christ Jesus unto [not 
on account of] good works," his "workmanship" (Eph. 
2: 10), "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Pet. 1: 4) — 
all this and more cannot be predicated merely of moral 
suasion through verbal ideality and force, apart from the 
Holy Spirit's presence and operation in the spiritually 
depraved soul. " The natural man " incapable, of himself, 
of spiritual understanding, " dead in trespasses and in 
sins," " by nature the child of wrath," " conceived in 
iniquity and brought forth in sin " — all this and more can- 
not be predicated of moral ability to believe, repent, and 
obey God, of itself, by means of the word, without the 
drawing agency and the enabling power of the Holy Spirit. 
(John 6: 44, 65.) 

Even the Christian, as Christ had in his ministry, must 
have the indwelling Spirit (Rom. 8: 11), the witness of 
the Spirit (Rom. 8: 16), the Comforter (John 16: 7), the 
infilling of the Spirit (Acts 13: 52), the intercession of the 
Spirit (Rom. 8: 26, 27) — groaning through us with prayer 
and teaching us how to pray as we ought; and if, in all 
these respects, the Christian must have the presence and 
power of the Spirit, how much more the depraved and 
color-blind sinner in order to conviction, quickening, and 
conversion! I grant the necessity and power of the word 
as a convicting, quickening, and converting instrumental- 
ity — that it is always objectively addressed to the sinner 
without reference to the subjective work of the Spirit be- 
cause the sinner must first hear and understand the truth 
as in Jesus; but repentance through conviction of sin and 
faith through godly sorrow for sin which are the elements 
of regeneration and the ground of remission, are the gift 



316 Why the Baptist Name. 

of God through the operation of the Spirit. (John 6: 44, 
65; 1 Cor. 3: 6-8; Eph, 2: 1-6.) The Spirit is everywhere 
present and active with his word since he is represented 
as convicting of sin, striving with men, making alive, act- 
ing upon, inspiring, abiding in, filling, interceding for and 
through us with unutterable groanings, teaching us how 
to pray as we "ought" (Rom. 8: 26), and subject to our 
asking (Luke 11: 13) at the hands of our Heavenly Father. 

My opponent charges me with ''physical regeneration" 
in holding that the Spirit, with the word, operates directly 
upon the soul; that the Spirit breathing in company with 
his word upon the soul would be an "unintelligible influ- 
ence, as wind sweeping over a surface," and " would be 
purely physical and could play no part in conversion." 
This is precisely what Jesus did with his apostles. "And 
when he had said this, he breathed upon them, and saith 
unto them, Receive ye the Holy Spirit." (John 20: 22.) 
The breathing of the " four winds " upon the slain of 
Israel (Ezek. 37: 2-14) is interpreted of God (verse 14) 
when he says: " I will put my Spirit in you, and ye shall 
live." John 3: 8 means the same thing spiritually to the 
spiritually dead soul that hears the " voice " and realizes 
the quickening power of the Spirit breathing life into the 
convicted, repentant, and believing sinner. There could be 
no such thing as "physical regeneration," except in phys- 
ically dead things, and this is called resurrection, as in 
the case of Lazarus and others quickened by the word of 
Christ as accompanied by the Holy Spirit; but what is 
true of the physical is true of the spiritual, though not in 
a passive sense. The intelligent and sentient sinner hears 
the " voice," is convicted of sin, repents and believes, as 
with the word the Spirit breathes spiritual or eternal life 
into his soul, and he becomes a " new creation " in Christ 
Jesus. Breath is the figure of life; and as Christ breathed 
upon his disciples and so imparted to them some extraor- 
dinary gift of the Holy Spirit, so, through his word, the 
Spirit imparts eternal life to the sinner, represented as 
his breathing or life-giving power. (John 3: 8.) 

The " one birth of water and Spirit " theory of my op- 
ponent is overthrown by John 3: 6, 8, in which the birth 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 317 

of the Spirit is isolated and emphasized to the exclusion 
of water, and is so defined as to imply that the water 
birth is only symbolic of the Spirit birth and of visible 
relationship to God's kingdom. It would be impossible for 
water and Spirit to be component " elements " of " one 
birth " — the one being physical and the other spiritual. 
Repentance and faith are the " elements " of the new birth 
of which the Spirit is the source and water the sign. 

John 1: 12 clearly shows that those who received or 
believed Christ had for this reason the right or the power 
to be or become the children of God; or, in other words, 
because they " were born of God," and not of any thing or 
body else. " To become " does not imply any future 
process of developing God's children already born of him. 
Regeneration and justification are instantaneous with 
faith: "He that heareth my word and believeth on him 
that sent me, hath eternal life, and cometh not into judg- 
ment, but hath passed out of death into life." (John 5: 
24.) So of a host of other passages. However regener- 
ation and justification may be logically distinguished, they 
are synchronous and inseparable in the moment of " faith 
unto salvation." 

The Adamic sin and its consequences of guilt and con- 
demnation based upon racial unity and responsibility is 
the burden of Rom. 5: 12-21; 1 Cor. 15: 20-22, according to 
the scholarship of the ages. The race was totalized in 
Adam, body and soul, and is individualized in birth, or 
else there is no racial identity or unity. As in the animal, 
so in the human, according to God's law of procreation, 
mind or soul — intellect, will, and sensibility — is born with 
the body, the material with the immaterial, and this is 
not materialism. (Bccles. 3: 21.) "That which is born 
of the flesh is flesh " (John 3:6), according to all scholarly 
interpretation, refers to sinful human nature (sarx), con- 
trasted here with the spiritual or sinless birth. The Bible 
knows nothing of sin except as racial ruin through Adam, 
wrought in unbelief; nothing of salvation except racial re- 
demption through Christ, appropriated by faith; and if 
Rom. 5: 12-21 involves only physical death, it involves only 
physical redemption, which no scholar would affirm. 



318 Why the Baptist Name. 

Heb. 7: 10 affirms that Levi paid tithes in the loins of 
his father Abraham. If so, he was seminally in the loins 
of Abraham — not simply in " body or flesh," which could 
not be personified, but in soul and body, which could be 
called " Levi " personally. This is a fine illustration of 
our racial totality in the loins of Adam and of our racial 
unity in Adam's sin — just as Levi seminally in the loins 
of Abraham shared the honor of paying tithes in the loins 
of his ancestor. 

The silly question of my opponent as to whether Adam 
sinned by the inheritance of depravity is easily answered, 
as I have already answered it, in the fact that Adam fell 
from a state of innocence, by transgression, into a state 
of depravity, and so corrupted his posterity — the very first 
of whom was a murderer. Adam originated human de- 
pravity on earth, as Satan did in heaven; and Adam fell 
by Satan's temptation. Evil, like other things, had to have 
a beginning. 

I did not compare Lydia and Cornelius to the " hypo- 
critical Pharisees," but to such Pharisees as Saul of Tarsus, 
who was a lost sinner, " dead in trespasses and in sins " 
(Eph. 2: 3), and whose "heart" had to be "cleansed by 
faith " as any other sinner saved by grace. He, too, was a 
"worshiper of God;" but, in the light of Christ, he found 
himself " the chief of sinners." 

The lexicographers and scholars are against the view of 
my opponent that the Ninevites (Matt. 12: 41) repented 
into (eis) the preaching of Jonah. They hold that eis 
here must be translated " in view of " or " on account of." 
So Dr. Broadus. Repenting "into the course of life de- 
manded by his preaching " was the consequence of his 
preaching at (eis) which they repented. 

God approved Abraham's faith (Gen. 15: 6) when he 
" reckoned it to him for righteousness " or justification, 
and made with him and his seed an everlasting covenant; 
and his circumcision afterwards (Gen. 17: 11) was the 
token of this covenant and the seal or assurance of the 
righteousness of his faith or justification which he had 
in uncircumcision, or before circumcision. Abraham was 
justified by faith before circumcision (Rom. 4: 1-5); and 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 319 

I have no objection to the suggestion of my brother that 
baptism, after the analogy of circumcision, may be the 
token, seal, assurance, or declaration of the righteousness 
of our faith, which is justification by faith, had before 
baptism, but not in baptism. Abraham's case, however, 
is a deathblow to Campbellism; and it is pitiful to see 
how my opponent resorts to James 2: 22-24 to find an 
argument for his baptism through Abraham's justification 
by work. In offering up Isaac it is said (Gen. 22: 1) " that 
God did prove Abraham;" and hence his justification by 
work was a justification unto proof, not unto life as in 
justification by faith which took place twenty years be- 
fore when he believed and his " faith was reckoned to him 
for righteousness," of which circumcision was the seal or 
token. Abraham was already saved by faith, signified by 
circumcision; and his justification by work was only proof 
of his fidelity and the ground of his greater blessing in 
the promises which God had made him. (Gen. 22: 16-18). 
His faith was strengthened and perfected; but this was not 
saving but sanctifying faith. 

Believing into Christ spiritually and being baptized 
into Christ symbolically to signify the fact is not a con- 
tradiction, but a Scripture truth. 

My opponent maintains that the baptism of the Holy 
Spirit received by Cornelius and his house was not " the 
gift of the Spirit," as in Acts 2: 38. Luke says: "On the 
Gentiles was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 
10: 44.) Peter says: "Who have received the Holy Spirit 
as well as we." (Acts 10: 47.) Again he says: "God gave 
unto them the like gift as he did also unto us." (Acts 11: 
17.) "Baptism of the Holy Spirit" and "gift of the Holy 
Spirit " are one and the same thing, according to the 
word. 

If Alexander Campbell did not teach that one must be- 
lieve on Christ, repent of his sins and be baptized for the 
remission of his past sins, without the direct operation of 
the Spirit, what did he teach? This is the teaching of my 
opponent; and it has been the teaching of Campbellism 
from the day of Alexander Campbell to the day of Elder 
F. W. Smith. In the conversion of a sinner the Holy Spirit 



320 Why the Baptist Name. 

personally, or by direct influence, has no part; and if he 
enters the baptized believer, he still acts, as in the sinner, 
only through the word, according to my opponent. " The 
Spirit himself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are 
the children of God;" but the independent, "himself" 
which would have been left out of the text if only the 
" word " was implied, has no significance with the Camp- 
bellite; and it is impossible to conceive what evidence or 
service there is of the Holy Spirit to the Campbellite. His 
conversion is that of a discursive faith and repentance 
through a belief of the truth, apart from any contact with 
the Spirit; and his regeneration and remission is only a 
pardon of sin and a change of state secured in water, 
after which it is claimed that the Spirit takes up his 
dwelling in the heart wholly fitted, by a mental change 
through the word and a change of state by means of a 
physical obedience in baptism, for his abode. 

If " baptism of the Holy Spirit " and " gift of the Holy 
Spirit," as at Pentecost and Csesarea, are one and the 
same, and if that baptism or gift is not now bestowed, 
then my opponent has no Holy Spirit; and I can see no 
difference between his theory of religion and that of the 
ethical theory of the Christian rationalist who follows sim- 
ply the ideal Christ without any reference to the Holy 
Spirit, except as expressed by the truth of God. His doc- 
trine of justification by faith depends wholly upon justifi- 
cation by work; and the logic of his position is that God 
for Christ's sake forgives us for the sake of our own ex- 
ternal obedience, which alone makes faith valid unto sal- 
vation. There is no necessity for Christ with him except 
as an expedient in salvation; and his obedience on the 
cross must be supplemented by our obedience in order to 
salvation. Campbellism knows nothing of grace beyond 
its provision of redemption and the word, which interpre- 
tation is nothing more than nature; and it is a stranger 
to the text: " But if it is by grace, it is no more of works: 
otherwise grace is no more grace." (Rom. 11: 6.) In 
other words, our salvation is all of grace, or none of 
grace, in provision, application, and consummation. (Eph. 
2: 8-10.) "For this cause it is of faith, that it may be 



Lofton-Smith Discussion. 321 

according to grace,'" and not of law, or work, lest any man 
" should glory." The sole condition of grace is faith, the 
sole medium through which grace could operate between 
God and the soul in the application of the atonement, and 
in which there could be no merit of work claimed by which 
man could boast. If baptism, or any other act of external 
obedience, intervenes in order to salvation, it destroys the 
province of faith and robs grace of its glory. My oppo- 
nent's theory is a stranger to the elective " purpose of the 
grace " of God " before times eternal " to save an innumer- 
able host, otherwise lost without the drawing and enabling 
power of the Holy Spirit. (See 2 Tim. 1: 9; 1 Pet. 1: 1; 
2 Thess. 2: 13; Rom. 8: 28-39; Eph. 1: 4; John 6: 37-40, 
44, 65.) 

In conclusion, there is no difference between my oppo- 
nent and myself as to the necessity of obedience. Jesus 
says: "If a man love me, he will keep my word." (John 
14: 23.) Faith works through love (Gal. 5: 6), and all 
obedience is the fruit of a love-working faith. Baptists 
obey Christ in baptism as thus animated, and we hold that 
there can be no love to obey that is not born of God. All 
acceptable obedience to Christ springs from love, and there 
can be no love without life from God through faith that 
works by love. "We know that we have passed out of 
death into life, because we love the brethren." (1 John 3: 
14.) "God is love," and the love of God and one another 
is the test of divine life and discipleship. We obey, there- 
fore, because we love, not in order to salvation as a re- 
ward; for we love and obey because we are saved by grace, 
and that not of ourselves, since it is the gift of God. (Eph. 
2: 8-10.) We have nothing whereof to "glory" in our- 
selves. Even our faith, however exercised by ourselves, 
is the gift of God (Eph. 2: 8); and our baptism, being an 
act of overt obedience, is the fruit of our faith, which is 
the condition of our justification. Baptists believe in obe- 
dience, insist on obedience, as the evidence of faith; and 
where that evidence is wanting, we simply hold that the 
faith is wanting, or dead. The Baptist position is wholly 
spiritual, not ritual, nor rationalistic; and hence our 
maxim: Blood before water, Christ before church, and the 
21 



322 Why the Baptist Name. 

Holy Spirit, with the word, before all, in all, and through 
all. 

But I have reached my limit. My space is out. I have 
had to leave some of my opponent's points untouched which 
I could have easily answered. Amid many interruptions 
and distractions I have tried to do the best I could; and 
with every stroke of the pen I have prayed God to lead me 
in the way of the truth and for the good of the world. 
I dedicate my effort to Christ and his people; and I recip- 
rocate the closing remarks of Brother Smith, who is part 
contributor of the work we send forth to the world, I trust, 
for the glory of God and the good of our fellow-man. I 
have used no debater's art, nor posed for effect before my 
readers, nor made ad captandum appeals, nor sought to 
compromise my opponent with other religionists, nor 
taunted him in any way; and though I have been plain 
and honest in the expression of my opinions, I have the 
most friendly and fraternal regard for my opponent and 
his people. I cannot but believe that my Brother Smith is 
a Christian in spite of his theory. 



INDEX TO MR. SMITH'S REVIEWS. 



Abraham, spiritual children of, 48, 70. 

Adam, what we inherit from, 66, 278; we sinned in, only 
representatively, 67; could, beget a soul? 68. 

Adamic nature, Christ possessed, 68. 

Armitage, Thomas, on the design of John's baptism, 32, 
272, 273; on John's baptism and that of Christ, 175; on 
the name " Baptist," 180, 289. 

Babe never washed till born, 50. 

Baptism, the promise of remission of sins after, 28, 31; no 
moral or spiritual change takes place in, 34; was John's, 
Christian? 37; is, retrospective? 49; objective symbolism, 
70; is, symbolic and declarative? 72; repentance precedes, 
84; a marriage certificate, 102, 281; to whom does, declare 
remission of sins? 85, 86, 101; for remission, 86, 104, 257, 
272, 282; ritualistic, 122; no one can become a Baptist 
without, 125, 126; is salvation essential to, 137, 138; John 
required confession of sins before, 141; does, make one a 
Baptist? 144; where did the Baptist Church get its? 251; 
the Doctor supposes a case that would render it impossi- 
ble for one to obey Christ in, 275. 

Baptism in the Holy Spirit, 108, 109; the Doctor does not 
seem to know the difference between the gift of the Spirit 
and the, 284. 

Baptismal regeneration, 46, 83, 198. 

Baptist, one who does not baptize cannot be scripturally 
called a, 14, 30; why John was called a, 13, 29, 292; is an 
official title and not a religious name, 14, 211, 289, 293; 
the name, was never by divine authority applied to a re- 
ligious institution, 29, 30, 300; the name, sectarian, 29, 
238; the, maxim, 123, 124; no one can become a, without 
baptism, 125, 126; the name, 155, 156; the word, not a 
translated word, 155, 172; why not drop the name, and 
take the name " Christian?" 195; can one be a Christian 
without being a? 213; why insist upon the name, if the 
churches of the gospel have no particular name? 252. 

Baptists, they call themselves, 29; when and where did the, 
take their name? 30, 234; are, the only death, burial, and 
resurrection Christians? 197; What specific truth neces- 
sary to salvation have, that others have not? 200, 201; 
how are, made? 213, 214; are, churches modeled after the 
New Testament church? 234, 253; do not get denomina- 
tional name from the word of God, 249; are, and Baptist 

(323) 



324 Index. 

history the spontaneous growth from gospel seed? 254, 
301. 

Baptist Church, my opponent admits that the Scriptures 
make no mention of, 290; owes its origin to the evolution 
of religious bodies, 299. 

Baptist churches, were, the first churches? 157, 176. 

Baptist denomination, the, not authorized by the word of 
God, 13; where did the, get its baptism? 251, 300. 

Baptist principles, 14, 30, 31, 46, 62. 

Baptistees, is the fact that, was not translated due to divine 
providence? 289. 

Baptized, symbolically, 141, 142. 

Barnes, Albert, on Tit. 3: 5, 83; on Noah's salvation, 138. 

" Because of repentance," 84, 85, 98. 

Believers, not regarded as, before baptism, 272, 273, 282. 

Believer's baptism as opposed to infant baptism, 46; as op- 
posed to baptismal remission or regeneration, 83. 

Benedict on the Paulicians, 250. 

Bible Union Translation, 156, 157, 173. 

Birth, the new, 47, 62-65, 276. 

Bliss, George R., on " for remission of sins," 18, 32. 

Blood of Christ procuring cause of salvation, 135, 136, 142. 

Body, over what, is Christ head? 158, 178; any religious, 
larger than a local congregation or smaller than the en- 
tire, of Christ is not of God, 214, 294; united to the one, 
by baptism, 256, 293; of Christ includes all God's children 
on earth, 291. 

Born in sin, 69, 70. 

Born of water, 46. 

Breathe, does the Holy Spirit, directly upon the soul? 276. 

Broadus, John A., on " with reference to remission of sins," 
281. 

Calvin, John, on Tit. 3: 5, 83. 

Campbell, Alexander, Dr. Lofton called upon to show one 
thing the disciples believe and practice originated by, 29; 
camped a while with Baptists, 31; could have organized 
a church on a New Testament basis, 271. 

" Campbellites," Dr. Lofton's apology for calling Christians, 
27, 28, 97, 98, 271, 280; do, combine a rationalistic faith 
with a ritualistic baptism? 121, 135, 136; are, a "self- 
regenerated " people whose religion is a " cold, mechan- 
ical affair?" 248; divided among themselves, 288. 

" Christ the Baptist Savior," 157, 176. 

" Christian," the name, common to all of God's people, 196; 
the name " Baptist " not synonymous with the name, 196; 
the name, abused, 200; can one be a, without being a 
Baptist? 213. 

" Christian Church," 212, 291. 

Christians, should, be differentiated from one another? 196, 



Index. 325 

197; are there, wearing sectarian names? 213; there were 
children of God throughout the Jewish dispensation, but 
they were not, 289. 

Church, my opponent has people saved before reaching the, 
142. 

Church Members' Guide for Baptist Churches on the action 
of associations, 238. 

Circumcision was God's seal of Abraham's faith, 281. 

Clarke, Adam, on depravity, 69 ; on Tit. 3 : 5, 83 ; on Acts 2 : 
38, 87. 

Close communion, 136, 137, 215. 

Commission, the, diagram on, 71. 

Conscience not a guide in worshiping God, 252, 301. 

Constitution of the church mutilated by Baptists, 239, 257. 

Cornelius, conversion of, 106-110, 257, 283, 284, 301. 

Damnation, subject to, for want of forgiveness attained only 
in water, 275. 

Death, the meaning of, 139. 

" Denominational " and " sectarian " in a religious sense 
are synonymous, 238. 

Denominations, are there Christians among the? 293. 

Depravity, native, does the Bible teach? 68. 

Diagram illustrating the difference between the New Tes- 
tament church and denominationalism, 298. 

Die, when do we, to sin? 34. 

Discern, Dr. Lofton cannot, spirits, 248. 

Divisions, why should one perpetuate denominationalism 
which causes? 144; Baptist name causes, 195; the Scrip- 
tures teach that there should be no, 211, 212; in the 
church at Corinth, 214. 

Draw, how does God, sinners? 221. 

Dutch Baptists teach baptism for remission, 47. 

Eis, Thayer's definition of, 85. 

Elect, only the baptized are characterized in the New Tes- 
tament as the, 273. 

Ephesus, the baptism of the twelve at, 37, 158. 

Eunuch, conversion of the, 27, 142, 288. 

Evolution of religious bodies, the Baptist Church owes its 
origin to the, 299. 

Executors, the apostles divinely appointed, 258. 

Experience of grace, 141, 177, 294, 296, 297. 

Faith, intelligent, 121, 122, 136; a rationalistic, and a ritual- 
istic baptism, 135, 136; saving, 138; degrees of, 141; " that 
saves" used interchangeably with "obey," 258; obedience 
of, 274, 275; are there two kinds of — historical and sav- 
ing? 287. 

"Faith alone," 142, 256, 288, 299, 302; are the children of 
Abraham the children of God by? 70; one of the cardinal 
doctrines of the Baptists, 238. 



326 Index. 

Faith and repentance, if, make Baptists, why do the same 
things make Methodists, Lutherans, etc.? 14; why did 
not, as taught by prophets make Baptists? 31; John not 
the first teacher sent of God to demand, 46. 

Feelings as an evidence of acceptance with God, 199, 253, 
277, 294; result of faith, 222. 

" For," the controversy hinges on the meaning of the prep- 
osition, 16. 

Form of doctrine, ye have obeyed, 15, 33, 275. 

Gar, 279; Thayer's definition of, 279; Liddell and Scott's 
definition of, 279. 

God, how, draws sinners, 220, 221. 

Gospel, is baptism a part of the? 275. 

Grace, salvation by, does not exclude acts of obedience, 34, 
273. 

Graves, John R., on John 3: 5, 47. 

Hackett, Horatio B., on Saul's baptism, 103; on for remis- 
sion of sins, 105, 106, 282. 

Hades, the gates of, shall not prevail, 253. 

Harkness, Albert, on Acts 2 : 38, 88, 106. 

Harper, W. R., on Acts 2: 38, 106, 283. 

Historical and saving faith, 287. 

Holy Spirit, baptism in the, 108, 109; the influence of the, 
in conversion, 125, 136, 215, 217, 276, 286; do disciples 
deny the work of the, in conversion? 198, 199; theory of 
the direct operation of the, destroys the Bible doctrine of 
salvation by faith, 199; the remission of the, 217-219; is 
the dead sinner made alive, by the direct operation of the? 
284, 285, 290, 291, 295, 303. 

Hovey, Alvah, on Tit. 3: 4, 5, 83; on Acts 2: 38, 86, 87, 99, 
106; on Saul's baptism, 103; on Noah's salvation, 138. 

Human race has no sin for which to atone before years of 
accountability, 48. 

Husband, Baptists dishonor, by wearing name of his serv- 
ant, 291. 

Independence, strictly speaking, the Baptists do not main- 
tain local church, 237. 

Infallibility, church, 254. 

Infancy, those dying in, need no atoning blood, 49, 65, 285. 

Infant baptism, the taproot of, 66. 

Inherited sin, 65, 70, 278. 

Israelites, salvation of the, 303. 

Jenkyn, T. W., on the union of the Holy Spirit and the 
church, 219-221. 

Jeter, J. B., 285. 

John, was, a Baptist preacher? 122, 123; was, a repentance 
preacher? 140, 287; the prototype of all Baptists, 155; 
was, called " the Baptist " before he baptized any one? 
13, 29, 292. 



Index. 327 

John's baptism, was, Christian baptism? 37, 158, 174. 
"John's name, the ' Baptist ' part of, is characteristic and 

definitive of his teaching and practice," 276. 
Jonah, repented at the preaching of, 100. 
Josephus not a competent witness, 15, 31, 32, 272. 
Knowledge vs. faith, 220. 
Law of the Spirit of life, 297. 
Law of works vs., of faith, 259, 274. 
Lay members, what shall we call the, of Dr. Lofton's 

church? 31. 
Levi paid tithes in Abraham, 76, 279. 
Liddon, H. P., on importance of baptism, 273, 274. 
Local church, no one baptized into the, 142, 143; strictly 

speaking, Baptists do not maintain, independence, 237. 
Lofton's, G. A., quotation from, " Review of the Question," 

235, 236. 
Lydia's conversion, 139, 140, 286. 
Macknight, James, on the " form of doctrine," 33; on union 

with Christ, 34; on Tit. 3: 5, 83. 
Marriage certificate, baptism a, 102, 281, 289. 
Materialism, my friend's doctrine is rank, 278. 
Maxim, the Baptist, 123, 124. 

McGarvey, J. W., on Mark 1: 4, 16, 35; on baptism unto re- 
pentance, 84; on the preaching of Jonah, 100, 101, 281. 
Name, the new, 158-161, 178, 180-183, 289, 290, 292. 
Natural man, who is the? 143, 144, 288. 
New birth, the, 47, 62-65, 276. 
Nicodemus, 46, 47, 50, 63, 271, 276. 
Ninevites, repentance of the, 101, 281. 
Noah, the salvation of, 137, 286, 287. 
Obedience of faith, 274. 
Organization, the, of the church, 157, 176, 177, 180; churches 

can exist without, 215, 235. 
Paligge, 98. 

Pattern, hold forth the, of sound words, 252. 
Paulicians, the, 250, 299. 
Rahab the harlot, 302. 
Regeneration, the washing of, 83, 98, 99; are we saved by? 

280, 281. 
Religious liberty, 252, 301. 
Remission of sins, not before baptism, 15, 32; baptized for, 

32, 86, 104, 257, 272. 
Repentance and faith, not peculiar to the Baptist Church, 

15; are, the sole conditions of remission of sins? 35, 37, 

62. 
Repentance precedes baptism, 84; a fruit of existing faith, 

123. 
Repented at the preaching of Jonah, 100. 
Retrospective, is baptism? 49. 



328 



Index. 



Reverend, 250. 

Saul's sins, were, forgiven before baptism? 102, 282. 

Seal, baptism, of God's approval, 281. 

Seed, the, of the kingdom, 255. 

Sin, definition of, 65; inherited, 65, 70. 

Sinners, do " Campbellites " baptize, to make them Chris- 
tians? 72, 280. 

Succession, unbroken line of, 48, 175, 197, 198, 235-237, 253, 
293. 

Symbolic and declarative, is baptism? 72, 250. 

Thief on the cross, 71. 

Union, when is, with Christ effected? 34. 

Voice, the influence exerted through the, of the Spirit, 277. 

Voting on applicants for membership, 141, 287. 

Wesley, John, on Tit. 3: 5, 83. 

Whitsitt, W. H., says Baptists practiced affusion, 235, 236, 
293. 

Willmarth, J. W., on " for remission of sins," 18, 32; on the 
commission, 49; on Acts 2: 38, 87; on Saul's baptism, 
104; on Noah's salvation, 138. 

" Wind, the, bloweth where it listeth," 276, 277, 295. 



Index to Scriptures. 



Gen. 1: 11—255. 
Gen. 6: 2—181. 
Gen. 7: 17—287. 
Gen. 13: 8—181. 
Gen. 22: 12—101. 
Ex. 14: 13—303. 
Deut. 33: 2—181. 
Josh. 5: 2—300. 
2 Kings 17: 34—159. 
2 Chron. 7: 13, 14—158. 
Ps. 51: 5—69. 
Ps. 107: 20—220. 
Ps. 119: 50—219. 
Prov. 28: 26—277. 
Isa. 1: 18—122. 
Isa. 6: 2—183. 
Isa. 8: 16—181. 
Isa. 9: 6—177. 
Isa. 28: 16—177. 
Isa. 35: 8—71. 
Isa. 43: 1—158. 
Isa. 55: 11—219. 
Isa. 56: 5—182. 
Isa. 62: 1, 2—159, 180, 181, 
182, 183, 292. 



Isa. 62: 4—183. 

Isa. 65: 15—179. 

Jer. 23: 29—125,219. 

Ezek. 18: 20—278. 

Ezek. 37: 2-15—260. 

Hosea 11: 4—221. 

Jonah 3: 10—101, 281. 

Zech. 12: 1—66. 

Matt. 2: 12—161. 

Matt. 2: 22—161. 

Matt. 3: 1—29, 156. 

Matt. 3: 11—84. 

Matt. 7: 23—216. 

Matt. 9: 14—276. 

Matt. 10: 19, 20—217. 

Matt. 10: 22—159. 

Matt. 12: 41—100. 

Matt. 16: 18—157, 180, 235, 

253. 
Matt. 18: 17—177. 
Matt. 19: 14—70. 
Matt. 19: 28—98. 
Matt. 26: 28—49, 100. 
Matt. 28: 19, 20—158, 174, 

221, 289. 



Index. 



Mark 1 
Mark 1 
Mark 9 
Mark 16 



4—16, 32, 35. 
9—13. 
1—292. 
16—28, 63, 71, 86, 



102, 107, 137, 222, 257, 275, 
277, 284, 287, 294, 303. 

Luke 1: 13—14. 

Luke 2: 26—161. 

Luke 7: 28—176, 180. 



Luke 7: 


50—257. 


Luke 8: 11—213, 237, 255. 


Luke 8: 12—296. 


Luke 17 


: 20—292. 


Luke 21 


: 31—292. 


Luke 22 


: 29—292. 


Luke 24 


: 46, 47—35, 36. 


Luke 19 


: 11—292. 


John 1: 


12—275, 277. 


John 1: 


23—30. 


John 1: 


29—66. 


John 3: 


5—46, 47, 50, 63, 


271, 276. 


John 3: 6—278, 280. 


John 3: 8—64, 276, 297. 


John 3: 36—258. 


John 4: 1, 2—157. 


John 5: 24—257. 


John 6: 44—220, 295. 


John 6: 45—221. 


John 6: 64—296. 


John 6: 65 — 295. 


John 12: 42, 43 — 302. 


John 15: 26—217. 


John 16: 8—139, 141, 217. 


John 16: 13—217. 


John 17: 20, 21—195. 


John 19: 33, 34—124. 


John 20: 30, 31—296. 


Acts 1: 6—292. 


Acts 2: 4—108, 217. 


Acts 2: 36—123, 216, 290. 


Acts 2: 37, 38—28, 36, 86, 


87, 88, 104-108, 199, 218, 


256, 257, 258, 272, 281, 282, 


284. 


Acts 2: 41—157, 218. 


Acts 3: 19—36, 102, 295. 


Acts 6: 3—181. 


Acts 6: 


7—275. 



Acts 9: 19—103. 

Acts 10: 22—161. 

Acts 10: 43-47—106, 108, 

109. 
Acts 10: 48—107. 
Acts 11: 14—107, 109, 302. 
Acts 11: 15—109. 
Acts 11: 18—109. 
Acts 11: 26—159, 160, 161, 

181, 182, 289. 
Acts 14: 23—215, 238, 255, 

294. 
Acts 15: 7—109, 284, 296. 
Acts 16: 14—139, 140, 286. 
Acts 18: 8—281. 
Acts 18: 24-26—37. 
Acts 19: 1-5—37, 158. 
Acts 20: 17—255. ' 
Acts 20: 28-30—235, 238. 
Acts 22: 16—84, 86, 102, 103, 

181, 275. 
Acts 26: 18—140. 
Rom. 1: 3—68. 
Rom. 1: 5 — 275. 
Rom. 3: 27—259. 
Rom. 5: 12-19—66, 67. 
Rom. 6: 3—34, 49, 124, 142, 

256. 
Rom. 6: 5—34. 
Rom. 6: 17—16, 33, 275. 
Rom. 6: 18—275. 
Rom. 7: 1-4—159, 161, 183, 

289 
Rom.' 8: 2—259, 297. 
Rom. 10: 14—70. 
Rom. 10: 17—136, 139, 296. 
Rom. 11: 4—161. 
Rom. 16: 16—159, 237, 290. 
1 Cor. 1: 2—212. 
1 Cor. 1: 10-13—176, 197, 

213, 234. 
1 Cor. 1: 21—71. 
1 Cor. 2: 1—143. 
1 Cor. 2: 11—248. 
1 Cor. 2: 13—217. 
1 Cor. 2: 14—143, 288. 
1 Cor. 3: 1-8—214. 
1 Cor. 10: 1, 2—303. 
1 Cor. 11: 3—178. 



330 



Index. 



10—248. 
12—293. 
13—142, 256, 288, 

-211. 

: 22—278. 

15—219. 

1-4—68, 216. 

7—220. 

19—159. 
: 1, 2—159, 183, 



1 Cor. 12: 
1 Cor. 12 
1 Cor. 12 
293. 

1 Cor. 12: 25- 
i Cor. 15 

2 Cor. 2: 
2 Cor. 5: 
2 Cor. 5: 
2 Cor. 5: 
2 Cor. 11 

281. 
2 Cor. 15: 22—278. 
Gal. 3: 23-25—274. 
Gal. 3: 26-29—48, 64, 70, 

136, 279. 
Gal. 4: 6—199. 
Gal. 5: 22—286. 
Eph. 1: 7—107, 136. 
Eph. 1: 22—178. 
Eph. 2: 3—69. 
Eph. 2: 5—139. 
Eph. 2: 19—180. 
Eph. 4: 4—212, 234, 256. 
Eph. 4: 5—287. 
Eph. 5: 23—142, 178. 
Eph. 5: 26, 27—50, 72. 
Eph. 6: 17—199, 297. 
Phil. 1: 1—238, 298. 
Phil. 1: 2—255. 
Col. 1: 12, 13—138. 
Col. 1: 18-24—124, 142, 158, 

178, 234, 290. 
Col. 2: 9—249. 
2 Thess. 1: 3—141. 
2 Thess. 2: 1-10—235. 
2 Tim. 1: 13—252. 
2 Tim. 2: 15—257. 



Tit. 1: 5—215, 255. 

Tit. 1: 15—294. 

Tit. 3: 4, 5—83, 98, 99, 

280. 
Heh. 1: 3—290. 
2: 17—68. 

4: 12—125, 220, 297. 
Heb. 4: 15—68. 
Heb. 5: 9—287. 
7: 9, 10—67. 
5—161. 
16, 17—258. 
3, 4—66. 
7—161. 
,39, 40—220. 
9—66, 279. 
25—161. 
James 1: 18—64. 
James 2: 7—160, 182. 

21, 22—101, 281. 

23—288. 

26—142, 258. 

22—15. 

23—298. 

5—254. 

21—157. 

15—122. 

20, 21—138, 286. 



Heb. 
Heb. 



Heb. 
Heb. 8: 
Heb. 9: 
Heb. 10: 
Heb. 11: 
Heb. 11: 
Heb. 12: 
Heb. 12: 



James 2: 
James 2: 
James 2: 
1: 
1: 



1 Pet. 
1 Pet. 



Pet. 2: 
Pet. 2: 
Pet. 3: 



1 Pet. 3: 
1 Pet. 4: 11—252. 
1 Pet. 4: 16—159. 
1 John 1: 2—181. 
1 John 3: 4—48, 65. 
1 John 5: 8—124. 
3 John 7—160. 



Rev. 2 

Rev. 2 

Rev. 3 

Rev. 22 



9—216. 
13—160. 
8—160. 
17—183. 



INDEX TO DR. LOFTON'S REPLIES. 

A. 

Abraham: 

" Natural children not subjects of baptism, 1, 4, 26. 

" Spiritual children created by faith alone, 55, 56, 80. 

" Justified by faith unto life, 114, 269, 319. 

" Justified by work unto proof, 115, 269, 319. 

" Circumcised after justification, 319. 
Adam: 75, 76, 318. 
Adamic Sin and Ruin: 54, 76, 260, 317. 

" Denied as racial by Campbellites, 54. 

" Taught by Scriptures, 57, 75, 76, 229, 230. 
Anabaptists: 10, 53, 168, 204, 241, 261, 264. 
Antinomian: 23. 
Armitage, Dr.: 40, 184, 187, 190, 192, 196, 223, 260, 308, 311. 

" Garbled and perverted, 40, 312. 

" Called John " typical Baptist of all ages," 260, 290. 
Ark: 

" Type of Christ, 147, 312. 

" Enter before entering water of baptism, 147, 312. 
Alford, Dr.: 22, 41. 
Argument from Acts 10: 43-48: 

" Unanswered and unanswerable, 6, 25, 44, 81, 93, 94, 95, 
96, 97, 117, 118, 120, 167, 247, 309. 

" Backbone of Campbellism broken, 94, 309. 
Atonement : 

" Provisional, 4, 53, 76, 77, 317. 

" Racial, 54, 55, 317, 318. 

" Ratified or rejected at accountability, 4, 53. 

" Infancy covered by the blood, 4, 53, 55, 76, 77. 

" No such thing as individual atonement, 54, 55, 77. 

" Other references, 231, 269. 

B. 

Baptism (see Symbolism, Ordinances): 

" Believers' opposed to infant baptism, 4, 5, 21, 73, 74, 
81, 89, 90, 92, 117, 119, 128, 151, 184, 223, 240, 247, 309. 
" Believers' opposed to baptismal remission and regen- 
eration, 5, 6, 51, 57. 
" Purely symbolic and declarative, 97, 150. 
" Lord's Supper similar instance of symbolism, 23. 
" Only " likeness " of death, burial, and resurrection, 23. 
" Nonproductive of salvation, 6, 91, 96, 118, 119, 128. 

(331) 



332 Index. 

" Disciples before baptism, 119. 

" Solely of Christian obligation, 56. 

" Not in order to remission of sins, 6, 91, 96, 118, 119, 128. 

" Simply sign of sins remitted, 44, 73, 89. 

" Retrospective, 4, 58. 

" Not condition of salvation, 75, 97, 134, 247. 

" Of John and Christ the same, 185. 

" Logically no part of the gospel, 312. 

" Prerequisite to church relationship and the Lord's 

Supper, 132. 
" With Baptists nothing without all else, 134, 152. 
" With Campbellites all else nothing without, 134, 152. 
" Medium of nothing, 60, 132. 
" No one can properly administer except Baptists, 9, 

205, 226, 262. 
" Red-Sea baptism, 269, 312. 
" Noah's-ark baptism, 147, 312. 
" Saul's baptism, 93, 115, 313. 
" Of repentance, 24, 25. 
" A washing after birth, 20, 61, 96. 
" Design of John's baptism, 2, 21. 
" Certificate, 93, 94. 
Baptist Maxim: 

" Blood before water, etc., 7, 130, 131, 172, 233, 269, 270, 

321. 
Baptist Name: 

" Given John on account of his practice and principles, 

1, 73, 240. 
" Prototypic, symbolic, characteristic, and historic, 9, 

305, 306. 
" How appropriated, 10, 20, 163, 240, 306. 
" Not in conflict with Christian, 167. 
" Not sectarian, 203. 
" Perfectly scriptural and pertinent, 39, 73, 187, 190, 201, 

203, 260, 305. 
Baptist History: 

" Testimony of writers, 261. 
Baptist Succession: 

" Only succession of any kind from the apostolic age, 

306. 
Baptist People: 

" Never varied from John, 7, 26, 265. 
" Never symbolized with Rome, 306. 
" Death, burial, and resurrection people, 9, 12, 90, 97, 

163, 224, 226, 305. 
" Principles and peculiarities, 11, 163, 168, 241, 244, 262, 

264, 202. 
" Baptize because saved, 81. 
" Churches after scriptural pattern, 225, 240, 264. 



Index. 333 

" Denomination not an " institution," 307. 

" Ever held Christ as sole head of the church, 189. 

" Other references, 1, 8, 10, 19, 40, 152, 162, 168, 187, 201, 
203, 223, 225, 239, 240, 246, 260, 264, 265, 266, 269. 
Barnes, Dr.: 147. 
Bliss, Dr.: 25, 27, 40. 
Broadus, Dr.: 113, 318. 
Blood : 

" Alone blots out sin (see Atonement), 4, 45, 55, 57, 96, 
97, 130, 133, 186, 269, 270. 
Bishops: 

" Plurality of, 245. 
Body of Christ (see Church): 131, 152, 239, 241, 246, 260, 

267, 306. 
Born Again (see New Birth) : 52, 260, 314, 315, 317. 
Born of Water (see Baptismal Regeneration): 60, 316. 
Breath of Spirit: 

" Means life, 314, 316 (Ezek. 37: 1-14; John 3: 8). 
Buried: 

" Because already dead, 40, 42. 

" Baptismal analogy, 9, 12, 97, 163, 224, 306. 

C. 

Campbell, Alexander: 

" Founder of the sect by his name, 19. 

" Advised his people against the use of the name 

"Christian," 171. 
" What he taught, 309, 319. 
" Called John "the first Baptist preacher," 40, 73, 223, 

260. 
" Organized a system of Pelagianism and Romanism 

combined, 306. 
" Other references, 19, 20, 37, 88, 110, 153, 171, 208, 225, 

260, 309, 319. 
Campbellism: 

" Rightly so called, 19, 32. 

" Literalizes baptismal symbolism, 26, 33, 60, 147. 

" Why not the Lord's Supper? 23, 60, 127. 

" Holds only the form of baptism and of church order, 

306, 307. 
" Knows nothing, experimentally, of the Spirit, 74, 320. 
" Knows nothing of spiritual " change," 43, 320. 
" Deals only with the abstract word, 73, 132. 
" Validates saving faith through water, 145. 
" Washes spiritual child in water in order to new birth 

and cleansing, 52, 59, 60. 
" Modified form of ritualism 61, 62. 
" Denies that infants are under the law, or lost, 54. 
" Infants need no salvation by the blood of Christ, 53, 54. 



334 Index. 

" Baptize to make Christians, 61, 81. 

" Bury the " old man " to kill him and make him alive, 
61, 81. 

" The eunuch not a Campbellite, 38. 

" Most sectarian of all sects, 146. 

" Divided among each other, 146. 

" Rationalistic, 7, 227. 
Campbellites: 5, 7, 19, 22, 37, 38, 61, 81, 82, 88, 126, 127, 146, 

150, 152, 319. 
Certificate: 

" Baptism, 92, 93, 113. 
Challenge Answered (see Lofton) : 119. 
Children of God: 

" Only by faith, 4, 51, 75, 92, 185, 223, 224, 226, 227. 
Children of Wrath: 

" By nature, 55. 
Christian, Dr. John T.: 53. 

C^Vi t*i ^if"! j-i n * 

' " Name, 9, 38, 61, 88, 110, 169, 170, 171, 185, 187, 190, 191, 
193, 194, 209, 224, 263, 320. 

" The " new name" (Isa. 62: 4), " Hephzibah," 168, 192. 

" Staggering argument against the word " Christian " 
as the " new name," 170, 193. 

" Greek exegesis against it (chrematizo) , 170, 193. 

" Never directly applied to church or saint in New Tes- 
tament, 171. 

" Originated like " Nazarene," 193. 

" " Church " or " churches," general name, 171. 
Church : 

" First manifestation before Pentecost, 165, 168, 188. 

" Clearly Baptist, 166. 

" Elections, 128, 131, 132, 149, 152, 164. 

" First membership through John's baptism, 184. 

" Already existent at Pentecost, 188. 

" Baptist modeled after New Testament, 225, 243, 241, 
246. 

" " Christian church " not used in New Testament, 179, 
187, 190. 

" Practicing John's baptism, 8, 164, 166. 
Circumcision: 

" Not a substitute for baptism, 4, 5, 135. 

" Given to Abraham after justification by faith unto 
life, 114, 150. 

" Analogy to baptism, 269, 319. 

" General reference, 1, 2, 97, 269. 
Conviction: 

" By the Holy Spirit, 43, 44, 130, 145, 229, 232. 

" Through the word, 228. 
Conversion: 44, 115, 116, 128, 266. 



Index. 335 

Cornelius: 

" Saved before baptism, 75, 81, 93, 95, 118, 149, 189, 230, 
247, 267. 
Corn well, Francis: 

" Restorer of baptism, 308. 
" Close Communion " (so called) : 

" Lord's Supper, 205, 209, 243. 
Credentials: 

" To covenant of grace, etc.; repentance and faith, 51, 
55, 75. 

D. 

Damned if Not Dipped: 

" Though believing penitent, 42, 59, 82, 232. 
David : 

" Born in sin, 55, 79, 231. 

" Rejoicing in forgiveness, 233. 
Depravity (see Adamic Sin) : 55, 57, 77, 78, 230. 

" All sin total depravity, 230. 

" Moral inability of, 206, 231, 315, 321. 

" The " natural man," 206, 315. 
Dermont, Dr.: 241, 260. 
DeWette, Dr.: 22, 41. 
Differentiation, Denominational : 

" Baptists from unscriptural sects, essential, 307. 

" See Baptist Name, 26, 203, 305. 

E. 

Efficacy of Water (see Remission, Baptismal) : 62, 115. 
Eis: 

" "Because of," 112. 

" General reference, 6, 8, 25, 45, 90, 91, 113, 115. 
Eunuch: 34, 132. 

F. 
Faith: 

" Saving faith before repentance absurd and unscrip- 
tural, 44. 

" Campbellite faith and repentance simply discursive, 
42, 61, 73, 126, 144, 145, 208. 

" Sole medium of salvation, 45, 59, 80, 81, 94, 146. 

" Justifies " without work," 151. 

" Cleansed by, 119, 207. 

" Sons of God through, 56. 

" Perfect for its purpose in salvation, 61. 

" Rationalistic, 7, 227. 

" Baptism as related to, 59. 

" Other references, 1, 2, 4, 24, 25, 41, 44, 56, 73, 80, 119, 
146, 150, 204, 230, 248, 261, 267, 268, 269. 
Forgiveness of Sin (see Remission) : 129. 



336 Index. 

Great Commission: 

" Matt. 28: 19— disciples before baptism, 119, 120. 
" Mark 16: 16 — an Orientalism, same thing. 119, 120, 
247, 267, 268, 311. 

G. 

Gospel : 

" Baptism no part of, 312, 313. 
Grace: 4, 42, 51, 53, 59, 77, 95, 208, 210, 233, 248, 249, 268. 

" Saved by grace without work, 59, 320, 321. 

" Abraham saved by, 115, 133, 147. 

H. 
Hackett, Dr.: 117, 118. 
Haldane, 22. 
Harkness, Dr.: 94, 118. 
Harper, Dr.: 118. 

Hephzibah (see New Name) : 168. 
History of Baptists (see Baptists) : 244, 260, 263, 265. 
Holy Spirit: 

" Given to Cornelius and house before baptism, 6, 25, 

44, 76, 81, 93, 95, 97, 117, 120, 167, 247, 309. 
" Saul filled with, before baptism, 93, 115, 116, 311. 
" Holy Spirit never given to any but disciples, 119. 
" Direct operation of, denied by Campbellites, 110, 145, 

189, 207, 228. 
" " Baptism " and " gift " the same, 26, 75, 111, 319. 
" Office and work of, 6, 10, 92, 94, 95, 118, 119, 133, 144, 

207, 229, 314, 315, 316. 
" Essential to conviction, quickening, and conversion, 

43, 44, 128, 130, 145, 148, 229, 232. 
" Other references, 10, 131, 132, 206, 263, 314. 
Hovey, Dr.: 40, 94, 111, 118, 147. 

" Baptism a figurative washing away of sin, 117. 
Hosius, Cardinal: 241, 260. 

I. 

Infants and irresponsible saved by the blood of Jesus, 54, 55. 
Infant baptism (see Baptism), 1, 5, 21, 210. 
Immersion: 8, 162, 163, 183, 189. 

" Baptizo the stronger word, 162, 163. 

" Failure of translations, 183, 189. 

J. 

John the Baptist: 

" Sent of God, 9, 20, 51, 186. 

" His baptism of heaven, 6, 7, 9, 21, 25, 26, 45, 52, 90, 191. 

" Next to his Master, 163. 



Index. 337 

" His name significant of his doctrine and practice, 5, 

25, 40, 43, 91. 

" Demanded repentance and reformation of life in order 
to baptism, 1, 20, 26, 128. 

" Also " righteousness of soul " before baptism, accord- 
ing to Josephus, 1, 21, 24, 40. 

" Refused baptism upon parental relationship, 1, 26. 

" Author of fundamental Baptist principles and prac- 
tice, 1, 5, 9, 11, 19, 20, 51, 73, 163, 202, 204, 247. 

" A thorough Baptist preacher, 7, 26, 127, 192, 204. 

" Called " first Baptist preacher " by Alexander Camp- 
bell, 20, 40. 

" Called " typical Baptist preacher of all ages " by Dr. 
Armitage, 190, 260. 

" His preaching and practice adopted by Christ and his 
apostles, 7, 45, 166, 163. 

" Prototype of all Baptists, 8, 9, 305. 

" Furnished baptized material for the first church, 165. 

" Called " charter members " by Elder Smith, 165. " 

" Made Christ and his apostles Baptists, 45, 164, 168, 186. 

" No difference between Christ's and John's baptism, 

26, 27, 166, 185. 

" Gave the keynote of the gospel, " Behold the Lamb of 

God," etc., 7, 54, 128. 
" -First definition of the racial atonement, 54. 
" He was a Christian Baptist, 110. 
" Foundation laid by John, 163. 
" Name perfectly scriptural, 20, 192. 
" If he was not in the kingdom of God, where was he? 
191. 
Jonah : 

" Preaching of, 43, 318. 
" Eis, because of, 112. 
Josephus : 

" An able and competent witness, 1, 21, 24, 40, 59, 305. 
Judaizers: 

" Campbellites, making the blood of Christ of none ef- 
fect, 97, 153. 
Justification: 

" By faith (without ivork) unto life, 56, 114, 269. 
" Bywork unto proof, 1, 54, 59, 115, 150, 269, 210. 
" By faith, that it might be grace, without work, 318, 

320, 321. 
" Campbellism knows nothing of justification by faith 
through grace, 320, 321. 
Jesus Christ: 

" His " NAME," believed on, sole ground for remission 
of sins, 5, 6, 7, 20, 43, 45, 75, 94, 95, 96, 117, 189, 204, 
317, 318. 

22 



338 Index. 

" Water can only symbolize and signify what the blood 
does, 96, 97. 
Jenkyn, Dr.: 230. 

K. 
Kingdom of Heaven: 

" Spiritually discerned by new birth of Spirit, 51, 52, 53. 

" Visibly signified and entered by water, 52. 
Kimchi, Dr.: 168. 

L. 
Lange, Dr.: 22, 40. 
Law and Prophets: 

" Until John, 191, 228. 

" Since John, kingdom of heaven preached, and every 
man entereth violently into it, 191. 

" John spiritually in the kingdom, 191. 
Levi: 

" Paying tithes in loins of Abraham, 76, 77, 318. 

" Doctrine of racial unity, 76, 77, 318. 
Likeness : 

" Baptismal, of death, burial, and resurrection, 23, 42, 
58, 60, 75, 89, 147. 
Literalism: 24, 52, 60, 96. 
LOFTON'S CHALLENGE: 

" The world's scholarship cannot overthrow his argu- 
ment on Acts 10: 43-48 for salvation before bap- 
tism, 6, 94, 95, 96, 117, 118, 119, 120, .309, 310, 311. 
Lord's Supper: 

" Twin symbol with baptism, 23, 60, 127, 267. 

" Governed by the Lord's law, 127, 146, 209. 

" Collective church act, 226. 

" Symbol of church unity, 226. 

" Subject to church discipline, 226, 227. 
Love : 

" Infallible evidence of eternal life, 82. 

" No man unpardoned that loves Jesus, 82. 

" Saving faith always works by love, 321. 
Lydia: 

" Heart opened by divine operation, 133, 145, 148, 230, 
314, 318. 

M. 
MacKnight, Dr.: 22, 41, 42. 
McGarvey, Dr.: 

" Exegetical sophistry on Mark 1: 4, 25, 43. 

" Exegetical sophistry on eis, 90, 91. 

" Exegetical sophistry on Jonah, 112, 113. 
McQuiddy, Elder J. C: 38. 
Marriage Certificate: 

" Baptism, given after marriage, 114, 115, 190. 

" Not the marriage itself a certificate, 114. 



Index. 339 

Medium of Salvation: 

" Baptism a likeness of, but not a medium of, salva- 
tion, 60, 61, 62, 78, 127, 206. 
Mennonites: 53. 

N. 
Natural Man: 

" Without moral ability, 127, 315. 

" Helpless without enabling power, 127, 315. 
New Birth: 

" Sovereign work of God, 52, 53, 55. 

" Through the breathing of the Spirit, 52, 53, 55, 74. 

" New life and relationship to God, 73. 

" Campbellism knows nothing of the life-giving breath 
of the Spirit, 74. 

" Born exclusively of God, 75. 

" Children not in the kingdom till born again, 79, 80. 

" Word rattles " dry bones," Spirit breathes life, 132, 133. 

" So is every one born of the Spirit, 231, 259, 260. 

" Conversion greatest miracle of revelation, 229, 314, 315. 
New Name (see Christian) : 

" "Jacob " changed to " Israel," 167, 192. 

" As often called "Jacob " afterwards, 167, 192. 
Newman, Dr. A. H.: 242. 
Nicodemus: 

" Secret disciple of Jesus, 52. 

" Probably converted through faith, 52. 



O. 

Obedience: 

" Heart obedience in faith, 41. 

" External obedience fruit of saving faith. 41. 

" Saving faith always obeys in baptism, 61. 

" Saving. obedience all of Christ, 54. 

" No scripture for justifying faith based on baptism, 151. 

" Can't supplement the obedience of Christ for salva- 
tion, 321. 

" The fruit and evidence of saving faith, 269. 
Orientalism: 

" Figurative uses of baptism, 60, 96, 89, 103. 

" Sign for the thing signified, 94, 120, 248, 268, 311. 

" Symbols not saviors, 61, 93, 97, 204. 
" So called by " Teaching of the Twelve Apostles," 61. 
Original Sin (see Adamic sin) : 79. 

OlsTlfi 11SPTT * 4*1 

" On Account of " (eis) : 5, 25, 91, 112, 113, 129. 



340 Index. 



Pelagian Heresy (see Campbellism) : 57, 153, 233. 
Pentecost: 

" Order of repentance and faith unchanged, 130, 132, 165. 

" Conviction by historical belief of the truth, 43, 44. 

" Faith preceded by repentance ground of remission, 130. 

" Symbolized and declared by baptism (as in Acts 10: 
43-48), 25, 44, 81, 93, 94, 117, 120, 167, 247, 309. 
Peter and John the Baptist Agree: 

" Order of repentance and faith, 7, 41, 130. 

" Opposed to Campbellism, 7, 126f 

" Peter did not directly address the " elect " as Chris- 
tians, 169. 
Paul: 

° Saved before baptism, 115, 313. 

" Not author of the name " Christian," 170. 

" His meaning of Tit. 3: 5, 111, 115. 
Prototype: 

" See John the Baptist, 8, 163, 187. 

" Characteristic name, 9, 305, 306. 



Q. 

Query, absurd, answered, 21, 166, 318. 

R. 

Remission of Sins: 

" Based upon Name of Jesus believed upon, 6, 20, 43, 45, 
75, 94, 117, 189, 204. 

" Before baptism, 21, 24, 247. 

" Symbolized by baptism, 20, 95, 96. 

" Baptismal, 61, 89, 95, 119. 

" Repentance and faith essential to, 204, 214. 
Repentance : 

" (Including faith) ground of remission, 24, 91, 96, 117. 

" Ninevites repented at (eis) preaching of Jonah, 112, 
113. 
Racial Unity and Responsibility: 

" See Atonement, 54, 76, 77, 78, 317, 318. 

" "All sinned," " all died " in Adam, 77. 

" Imputation, actually, not representatively, 76, 77. 
Regeneration : 

" See New Birth, 59, 60, 61, 115, 208. 

" Baptismal, 89, 90, 187, 208, 240, 309, 316. 

" Physical (absurd), 316. 
Ritualism: 

" Campbellism a form of, 61, 62, 93. 



Index. 341 

S. 
Salvation: 

" By grace, through faith, alone, 4, 45, 54, 59, 74, 81, 118, 

147, 168, 210, 229, 258, 320, 321. 
" Not by works, 4, 147, 168, 210, 237, 268, 269. 
" Into Christ before water, 147. v 
" Cornelius and house saved before baptism, 6, 75, 81, 93, 

95, 118, 149, 189, 230, 267. 
" Water only symbolical of, 93, 148. 
" Jerusalem and Caesarea parallel cases, 166. 
" What to do to be, 230. 
Salvations, Two: one by mouth, another by water, 59, 268. 
Shedd, Dr.: 78, 261. 

Sin (see Adamic Sin) : 6, 53, 55, 75, 79, 93, 116, 145, 317, 318. 
Sinner: 128, 129, 133, 144, 152, 232. 

" Not a sinning sinner, absurdity of, 82. 
Succession: 
" Baptists alone have any sort of, 205, 223, 224, 241, 242, 
260, 261, 264, 268, 306, 307. 
Strong, Dr. A. H.: 

" His canon of symbolic interpretation, 24, 53, 78, 89, 96. 
Soul: 

" Miraculously healed as the body, 73, 312. 
" Other references, 76, 78, 93, 115. 
Spirit (see Holy Spirit) : 314, 316. 
Spirit Birth (see New Birth) : 52, 60, 148. 
Symbols (see Ordinances and Baptism), 6, 9, 23, 26, 45, 51, 

53, 56, 60, 61, 89, 113, 120, 145, 240, 247, 269. 
Symbolism of Baptism: 54, 58, 60, 92, 96, 97, 117, 118, 147, 
163. 

T. 
Thief on the Cross: 59, 80. 
Transgression: 55, 79. 
Type (see Symbol) : 131, 147, 187, 267, 269. 

U. 
Union, Christian: 

" Baptists not divisive except on principle, 224. 
" Baptists in favor of, at the Jordan and according to 
John's ideal, 309. 
Union with Christ: 

" Symbolized by baptism, 24, 56, 97, 131, 132. 
" Secured by faith alone, 56, 97, 131. 



W. 



Washing Away Sins: 
" Figurative, 61, 116. 

^JVater : 

" Birth of, 52, 53, 73. 



342 



Index. 



" Efficacy of, 145, 185. 
Willmarth, Dr.: 24, 25, 40, 59, 93, 117, 147, 247, 248. 
Whitsett, Dr. W. H.: 242. 
Woman in the Wilderness: 10, 239, 308. 
Word and Spirit: 

" Word instrumental and mediate, 73, 119, 132, 133, 206. 

" Spirit immediate and efficient, 53, 119, 132, 133, 145, 
206, 228, 229, 230, 232, 315. 
Work: 

" Salvation not by, 45, 248. 

" Only evidenced by, proved, 151. 
Wyckliffe: 241. 
Withrow, Dr.: 261. 

Y. 

Years of Accountability: 53, 54, 55, 78. 
Ypeig, Dr.: 241, 260. 



Index to Scriptures. 



Old Testament. 


51: 12—227. 


Genesis : 




58: 3—55. 


1: 27—78. 




107: 20—230. 


1: 28—78. 




119: 36—314. 


2: 7f— 78. 




119: 50—230. 


4: 1—78. 




139: 15f— 78. 


5: 3—73, 75, 


78. 




15: 6—114, 318. 


Ecclesiastes: 


17: 11—318. 




3: 21—317. 


22: If— 151. 






46: 26—78. 




Isaiah : 
1: 18f— 127. 


Exodus: 




49: 26—191. 


3: 6—191. 




50: 4—314. 


14: 12—313. 




55: 11—230. 

62: If— 167, 192, 194. 


Numbers : 






24: 17—191. 




Jeremiah: 


Joshua: 
5: 2f— 262. 




23: 29—230. 
31: 33—206. 


Job: 




Ezekiel: 


22: 8—206. 




37: 2f— 148, 230, 260, 316 
37: llf— 133. 


Psalms: 






14: 7—191. 




Zechariah: 


51: 2—233. 




4: 6—314. 


51: 5—55. 




12: 1—76. 



Index. 



343 



New Testament. 
Matthew : 

3: 1—20, 24, 25. 
3: 3—8. 

Q . g -I 

3: 11— 111, 112, 113. 
3: 15—9. 
9: 2—61. 
9: 5—312. 
9: 20—312. 

g . 22 61 

12: 41—43, 91, 112, 113, 

318. 
18: 3—79. 
19: 14—79. 
26: 26—23. 
26: 28—57, 112. 
28: 19—120, 166, 268. 

jVIcirk * 

1: 4—6, 24, 25, 43, 91, 113. 

1: 9—1, 5, 8, 15, 16. 

16: 16—24, 80, 81, 94, 

120, 247, 268, 311. 

Luke: 

1: 33—191. 

2: 26—170. 

3: 3—6, 91. 

7: 48—312. 

7: 50—59, 61, 247, 312. 

7: 28—191. 

8: 11—225, 243. 

11: 16—316. 

13: 23—232. 

16: 16—191. 

17: 5—146. 

24: 46—43. 

24: 47—25. 

John: 

1: 12—53, 74, 207, 317. 

1: 13—315. 

1: 29—7, 54. 

1: 41—65. 

3: 3—80, 131. 

3: 5—24, 52, 53, 73, 111. 

3: 6f— 52, 316. 

3: 7—53. 



3: 8—53, 206, 259, 315,316. 

3: 36—268. 

4: If— 164. 

5: 21—53. 

5: 24—53, 115, 247, 268, 

317. 
6: 37f— 321. 
6: 44f— 206, 231, 315, 316, 

321. 
6: 54—111. 
6: 63—231. 
6: 65—146. 
14: 17—133. 
14: 23—321. 

16: 8f— 129, 133, 229, 314. 
20: 22—316. 

Acts: 

1: 15f— 165, 188. 

1: 23f — 149. 

2: 25—113. 

2: 36—43, 129. 

2: 38—6, 24, 38, 94, 95, 96, 

113, 117, 207, 267, 309, 

310, 311. 
2: 42—24. 

3: 19—25, 44, 96, 130. 
4: 18—169. 
5: 32—114. 
6: 5f— 149. 
6: 7—41. 
7: 51—232. 
9: 9f— 116. 
9: 15f— 116. 
9: 17f— 93, 116, 312. 
10: 22—170. 
10: 35f— 113. 
10: 43—6, 25, 44, 81, 93, 

94, 95, 96, 97, 117, 118, 

120, 167, 247, 309. 
10: 44f— 230, 319. 
10: 45—207. 
10: 47—92, 96, 118, 207. 
11: If— 118. 
11: 14—6, 24, 94, 247. 
11: 17—319. 
11: 26—167, 169, 170, 193, 

194. 
14: 23—227, 245. 



344 



Index. 



15: 7f— 75, 118, 119, 


120, 


5: 4f— 149, 226. 


267, 310. 




7: 11—149. 


16: 8—229. 




10: 16f— 226. 


16: 14—133, 145, 148, 


230, 


11: 8—78, 127. 


314. 




11: 22f— 226. 


16: 34—230. 




12: 2—131. 


17: 24f— 78. 




12: 3—133. 


19: 1—26, 45, 166. 




15: 1—9, 313. 


19: 4—1, 120. 




15: 20f— 317. 


20: 7—226. 




15: 22—54. 


20: 21—44. 






20: 28f— 242. 




Second Corinthians: 


22: 6f— 115. 




5: 7—231. 


22: 10—116. 




5: 14—57. 


22: 16—24, 93, 116, 311. 


5: 17—315. 


24: 5—193. 




^ 


26: 12f— 115. 




Galatians : 


26: 28—170. 




3: 26f— 56, 74, 80, 92, 311 
4: 6—207. 


Romans: 




5: 6—321. 


1: 5—41. 




5: 22—146. 


3: lOf— 55. 






3: 19f— 79. 




Ephesians : 


4: If— 114, 150, 318. 




1: 4—321. 


4: 13f— 56. 




1: 13—114. 


5: 12f— 54, 76, 77, 78, 


317. 


1: 21f— 131. 


6: If— 56, 309. 




1: 22—152. 


6: 3—9, 58, 120, 150, 


151, 


1: 23—267. 


311. 




2: 1-6—316. 


6: 4—22, 309, 311. 




2: 3—55, 318. 


6: 5—42. 




2: 5—128, 133, 235, 148, 


6: 17—22, 41. 




260. 


8: 11—314, 315. 




2: 8f— 59, 320, 321. 


8: 16—315. 




2: 10—53, 315. 


8: 26f— 315, 316. 




2: 15—315. 


8: 28f— 321. 




4: 4—239. 


10: 9f— 59, 268, 305. 




5: 23—152. 


10: 10—305. 




5: 25f— 60. 


11: 6—97, 320. 




5: 26— 24, 311. 


13: 14—92. 






16: 16—41. 




Philippians: 
1: 1—245. 


First Corinthians '. 




2: 13—146. 


1: 14—314. 




2: 21—163. 


2: 14—127, 133, 152, 206. 


3: 20—147. 


2: 39—239. 






3: 5f— 53, 145, 206, 229, 


Colossians: 


314, 316. 




1: 18f— 131, 152. 


3: 8—316. 




2: 12—9. 



Index. 



345 



Second Thessalonians : 



2: 


lf- 


-242. 


2: 


13- 


-146, 321. 


3: 


6— 


-127. 


First Timothy: 


3: 


2f- 


-245. 


4: 


14- 


-24. 


Second Timothy: 


1: 


9— 


-321. 


Titus: 




1: 


5— 


-227. 


1: 


7— 


-245. 


3: 


4— 


-89, 111. 


3: 


5— 


-24, 311. 


Hebrews : 


3: 


lf- 


-165. 


4: 


12- 


-133. 


5: 


10—145, 229. 


7: 


9f- 


-76. 


7: 


10—78, 318. 


8: 


5— 


-170. 


9: 


16- 


-145, 268. 


10 


: 22—24. 


10 


: 3< 


1—115, 145 


12 


: 9- 


-76. 


12 


: 23—131. 


James : 




1: 


18- 


-208, 315. 


2: 


7- 


-169. 



2: 21—114. 

2: 26—151, 268. 

First Peter: 
1: 1—321. 
1: 3—53. 

1: 22f— 22, 41, 315. 
3: 15—127. 
4: 16—169. 

Second Peter: 
1: 4—315. 

First John: 

1: 7—96, 227, 233. 
3: 13—208. 
3: 14—92, 321. 
5: 8—131. 

Third John: 
1: 7—169. 

Revelation : 
2: If— 245. 
2: 13—169. 
2: 17—194. 
3: 8—194. 
3: If— 245. 
3: 12—194. 
5: If— 130, 150. 
7: 3—170, 193. 
8: 16—114, 208, 227, 233. 
10: 17—146. 
11: 2—308. 
11: 4—170. 
12: 3—146. 



FEB 1 1213 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper proces 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: April 2006 

PreservationTechnologie 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATIC 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



